alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-2091

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Rufus Merlin Sumlin, Jr., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. * 

___________

 Submitted: April 19, 2001

 Filed: May 7, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rufus Merlin Sumlin, Jr., pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a

firearm and being a felon in possession of ammunition, both in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1) (1994). At sentencing, he objected to receiving only a two-level, rather

than three-level, reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and to the application of a

four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) for using or possessing firearms

in connection with another felony offense.

The government linked Sumlin’s possession of firearms with his possession and

sale of drugs on the basis of police reports, introduced through the testimony of the
-2-

probation officer who had reviewed them in preparing the presentence report. The

reports related that firearms were present when Sumlin sold drugs to a confidential

informant. The reports also showed that at the time of his arrest there, Sumlin had a

loaded firearm in his pocket and that there was drug residue in the apartment. The

District Court overruled Sumlin’s objections, finding an adequate evidentiary basis for

the enhancement, and sentenced him to eighty-two months imprisonment and three

years supervised release. Sumlin renews on appeal the arguments he presented below.

Sumlin’s challenge to the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction he received is

foreclosed by his stipulation to a two-level reduction in his written plea agreement. See

United States v. Barrett, 173 F.3d 682, 684 (8th Cir. 1999); United States v. Nguyen,

46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995).

We conclude, however, that the District Court lacked an adequate factual basis

for applying the challenged enhancement. By virtue of Sumlin’s objection, the

government had the burden to prove a connection between the firearms and another

felony offense, but it did not show that its hearsay evidence bore sufficient indicia of

reliability. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 6A1.3(a) (1998) (stating that a

sentencing court may consider relevant evidence which might be inadmissible at trial,

provided the information has sufficient indicia of reliability); United States v. Wise, 976

F.2d 393, 402-04 (8th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (discussing when hearsay is sufficiently

reliable under § 6A1.3(a)), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 989 (1993). We believe that a more

probative evidentiary hearing on this issue is warranted.

Accordingly, we vacate Sumlin’s sentence and remand for resentencing

consistent with this opinion. Apart from the enhancement, Sumlin’s conviction and

sentence are affirmed in all other respects.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE THOMAS MESSERGES

AND EZZAT A. DABBISH 

_____________________ 

2011-1287 

(Serial No. 10/286,697) 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

SCOTT A. MCKEOWN, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, 

Maier & Neustadt, P.C., of Alexandria, Virginia, argued 

for appellants. On the brief were LAWRENCE J. CHAPA, 

Watson Intellectual Property Group, PLC, of Libertyville, 

Illinois; and SYLVIA CHEN and ROLAND K. BOWLER,II, 

Motorola Mobility, Inc., of Libertyville, Illinois. 

ROBERT J. MCMANUS, Associate Solicitor, Office of the 

Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of 

Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on 

the brief were RAYMOND T. CHEN, Solicitor and THOMAS 

W. KRAUSE, Associate Solicitor. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, BRYSON, and MOORE, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 December 8, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

STIPULATION & ORDER OF DISMISSAL – 1

(CV-06-559-MJP)

Judge Pechman 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ARINDUM MUKERJI (A98-123-970) and

LIPIKA CHAKRABARTI (A98-123-971),

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General 

of the United States; MICHAEL CHERTOFF,

Secretary of Homeland Security; ROBERT S.

MUELLER, III, Director, Federal Bureau of

Investigation; EMILIO T. GONZALEZ,

Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

Services; JULIA HARRISON, Acting Seattle

District Director, US CIS; DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION SERVICES; and the

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

 Defendants.

Case No. CV-06-559-MJP

STIPULATION AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Note on Motion Calendar July 7, 2006)

This case is a Complaint for Injunctive, Mandamus, and Declaratory Relief, seeking an

order directing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”) and the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (“FBI”) to complete Plaintiff Mukerji’s Name Check/background investigation so

he and his wife can adjust status. The parties are in agreement that, subsequent to filing of the

suit, both Plaintiffs have adjusted to Lawful Permanent Resident status, thereby rendering this

case moot. Therefore, 

Plaintiffs and Defendants HEREBY STIPULATE, AGREE, AND JOINTLY REQUEST

Case 2:06-cv-00559-MJP Document 8 Filed 07/10/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

STIPULATION & ORDER OF DISMISSAL – 2

(CV-06-559-MJP)

that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice and without court awarded costs or attorney

fees. 

Respectfully submitted on July 7, 2006.

 /s/ Robert Gibbs /s/ Christopher L. Pickrell 

ROBERT GIBBS CHRISTOPHER L. PICKRELL

WSBA # 5932 WSBA # 12787

Attorney at Law Assistant United States Attorney

Gibbs Houston Pauw Western District of Washington

1000 Second Avenue, Suite 1600 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, WA 98104-1094 Seattle, WA 98101-1271

Tel 206-682-1080; Fax 206-689-2270 Tel 206-553-4088; Fax 206-553-4067

E-mail rgibbs@ghp-law.net E-mail chris.pickrell@usdoj.gov

Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Defendants

ORDER

The parties having so stipulated, the above is SO ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to

send copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2006.

AMarsha J. Pechman

U.S. District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00559-MJP Document 8 Filed 07/10/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   10-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-10-1999
<CASH>                                          26,376
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,281
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,160
<INVENTORY>                                    148,459
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               256,152
<PP&E>                                         325,435
<DEPRECIATION>                                 119,345
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 553,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          131,475
<BONDS>                                        148,267
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           291
<OTHER-SE>                                     251,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   553,266
<SALES>                                      1,372,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,372,835
<CGS>                                        1,196,133
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,196,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               157,913
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,618
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,171
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,563
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,234
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    166
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,068
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12


</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

January 29, 1957

No. 60461.

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

petitions 7220-R, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, facts, and circumstances are the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 59952, it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petitions were, therefore, granted.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BRANDON HVIDSTEN,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NUMBER CR06-5449

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

Upon the stipulation of the parties to continue the trial date in the abovecaptioned case, the Court finds that such a continuance would serve the ends of justice,

therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date be continued to October 16, 2006. 

The resulting period of delay from September 5, 2006 to October 16, 2006 is hereby

excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

DONE this 1st day of September, 2006.

 s/ J Kelley Arnold 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Presented By:

/s/ Jerome Kuh /s/ Glen Templeton

Attorney for Defendant Special Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:06-cr-05449-JPD Document 7 Filed 09/01/06 Page 1 of 1
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 293

Expressing the sense of the Senate that Nadia Dabbagh should be returned

home to her mother, Ms. Maureen Dabbagh.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 8 (legislative day, OCTOBER 2), 1998

Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. WARNER, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN)

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee

on Foreign Relations

OCTOBER 21 (legislative day, OCTOBER 2), 1998

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate that Nadia Dabbagh

should be returned home to her mother, Ms. Maureen

Dabbagh.

Whereas Mr. Mohamad Hisham Dabbagh and Mrs. Maureen

Dabbagh had a daughter, Nadia Dabbagh, in 1990;

Whereas Maureen Dabbagh and Mohamad Hisham Dabbagh

were divorced in February 1992;

Whereas in 1993, Nadia was abducted by her father;

Whereas Mohamad Dabbagh later fled the country with

Nadia;
2

SRES 293 ATS

Whereas the governments of Syria and the United States

have granted child custody to Maureen Dabbagh and

both have issued arrest warrants for Mohamad Dabbagh;

Whereas Mohamad Dabbagh has escaped to Saudi Arabia;

Whereas the United States Department of State believes

Nadia now resides in Syria;

Whereas Maureen Dabbagh, with the assistance of missing

children organizations, has been unable to reunite with

her daughter;

Whereas the Department of State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Interpol have been unsuccessful in their

attempts to bring Nadia back to the United States;

Whereas Maureen Dabbagh has not seen her daughter in

over five years; and

Whereas it will take the continued effort and pressure on the

part of Syrian officials to bring this case to a successful

conclusion: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Governments of the United States and Syria immediately locate

Nadia and deliver her safely to her mother.

Æ
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bloomsburg Town Center, LLC :

:

v. : No. 905 C.D. 2019

:

Town of Bloomsburg, :

Appellant :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, December 23, 2020, having considered Appellee’s application 

for reargument and Appellant’s answer in response thereto, the application is 

denied.
No. 55019.

#### Solomon Arastoozad *v.*United States,

protest 124162-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of S. *Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 11 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 11

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

               Providing for an adjournment of the House.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 11

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Tuesday, January 
19, 1999, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 2, 
1999.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 19, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
No. 64640.

#### Geo. Borgfeldt Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 60/4978 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid figures similar in all material respects to *302those the subject of *M. Pressner & Co.*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 77, C.D. 1211), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Mitchell, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 291]

—Peters, J.

Ap*814peal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered May 4, 1993, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts).

In September 1992 and again in November 1992, State Police Investigator Michael Kealon, while wearing a concealed microphone, negotiated the purchase of crack cocaine from defendant. All conversations relating to the purchase were recorded. Subsequent to defendant’s arrest and indictment, the District Attorney sought to introduce into evidence the tapes of the conversations. County Court found the taped conversations of only one of the drug buys audible and thus admitted it and the transcript of the recording, prepared by the investigator who transacted the purchase with defendant, into evidence. Defendant contends that such determinations by County Court were in error. We disagree.

It is well settled that the audibility of a tape recording is a preliminary issue to be resolved by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion *(see, People v Watson,*172 AD2d 882). We find that while the tape was "far from a model of clarity”, it was sufficiently audible to support County Court’s determination *(People v Cline,*192 AD2d 957, 959, *Iv denied*81 NY2d 1071; *see, People v Norwood,*142 AD2d 885, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 960; *People v Godley,*130 AD2d 791, *Iv denied*70 NY2d 750). As to the transcript, the fact that it was transcribed by the investigator who was involved in the drug buy does not necessarily render it inadmissible *(see, People v Warner,*126 AD2d 788, *Iv denied*69 NY2d 887). Since it is within County Court’s discretion to admit a transcript when it will serve as an assistance to the jury *(see, People v Watson, supra),*and the record reflects that the court instructed the jurors that the transcripts were to be used only as an aid if they found the tapes audible, we find no error.

We finally reject defendant’s contention that it was error to deny a missing witness charge pertaining to the State Police informant who assisted in the investigation. There was no evidence that the informant participated in the critical conversations concerning the drug buy, that such testimony would have been relevant to the defense or that such testimony, if proffered, would have been anything other than cumulative. Accordingly, a missing witness charge was unnecessary *(see, People v Dianda,*70 NY2d 894).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CARL MEALING,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF RIDGEFIELD, WASHINGTON;

RIDGEFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT;

RIDGEFIELD POLICE CHIEF BRUCE

HALL; BRUCE HALL in his individual

capacity; RIDGEFIELD CITY MANAGER

GEORGE FOX, and GEORGE FOX in his

individual capacity,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5778FDB

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

REPRESENTATION 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Jay William Trumble, has responded to the Court’s Order of February 12,

2007 [Dkt. # 77] regarding his motion to withdraw and his client’s intentions about obtaining new

counsel or proceeding pro se. To simplify matters for Plaintiff, Mr. Trumble states that he has taken

a brief leave from his new employment, that he will file responses in opposition to the City of

Ridgefield’s Motion for Summary Judgment and to Bruce Hall’s Motion for Summary Judgment, but

requests that the Court grant Mr. Trumble’s motion to withdraw following service and filing of the

aforementioned oppositions. Plaintiff Mealing states in his deposition that he will continue to work

to find counsel to represent him in this matter. 

Once Mr. Trumble has filed his oppositions to the pending summary judgment motions, the

Court will address his motion to withdraw. SO ORDERED.

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2007.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 83 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 16 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 16

   Proposing a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 1997

 Mr. Ashcroft (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Allard, Mr. 
    Bond, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Burns, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
    Coverdell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Frist, Mr. Gramm, Mr. 
 Hutchinson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Mack, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
  Sessions, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Smith of Oregon, and Mr. 
Thomas) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 
             and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Proposing a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. After this article becomes operative, no person shall 
be elected to a full term as a Senator more than twice, or to a full 
term as a Representative more than thrice; no person who has been a 
Senator for more than three years of a term to which another person was 
elected shall subsequently be elected as a Senator more than once; and 
no person who has been a Representative for more than a year of a term 
to which another person was elected shall subsequently be elected as a 
Representative more than twice.
    ``Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it is 
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of 
three-fourths of the States within 7 years after the date of its 
submission to the States by Congress.''.
                                 <all>
```
Before the Third Division,

August 6, 1954

No. 58322.

protest 115212-K (Los Angeles).

#### Balfour Guthrie & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

The merchandise involved in this protest consists of brandy imported from Spain and entered for warehouse at Los Angeles on December 17, 1942. The entry was liquidated on February 19, 1943, and reliquidated on October 31, 1944. Timely protest was filed against the reliquidation, claiming that the amount of internal revenue tax assessed was improper in view of certain trade agreements. Thereafter, the protest was amended to include a claim that under paragraph 813 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the act of June 8, 1948, Public Law 612 (62 Stat. 344), duty should be assessed upon the same quantity as that which was subjected to final assessment of internal revenue tax. Itfis this claim which is now relied upon by the plaintiff.

Said Public Law 612 amending paragraph 813 provides as follows:

> Par. 813. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the duties imposed on beverages in this schedule which are subject also to internal revenue taxes shall be imposed only on the quantities subject to such taxes.

> Sec. 2. This amendment shall be effective as to all such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the day following the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply also to any such merchandise entered or withdrawn before that day with respect to which the liquidation of the entry or withdrawal, the exaction, or the decision as to dutiable quantity has not become final by reason of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.

At the trial, Frank W. Schoeppe, liquidator at the port of Los Angeles, testified that, when the entry was originally liquidated, duty was assessed on 1,167.2 gallons and internal revenue tax at $6 per gallon on 1,124.6 gallons. Because of a change in law and the adoption of a trade agreement, the entry was subsequently reliquidated as follows: Internal revenue tax was assessed at $9 per gallon on 1,100.23 gallons, allowance being made for breakage or shortage discovered after the original liquidation; the rate of duty on the bottles was changed from one-third of 1 cent a pound to one-sixth of 1 cent a pound; and duty on the brandy was again assessed on 1,167.6 gallons.

On the above facts and in view of the provisions of Public Law 612, *supra,*we hold that duty on the instant merchandise is assessable only upon the quantity subject to internal revenue tax. *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155; *United States*v. *The Josebra Company,*41 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 206, C. A. D. 552. The protest is sustained, and judgment will be rendered for the plaintiff.