alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Docket Number FAA - 2013 - 0703

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?
NO. 07-03-0383-CR

	NO. 07-03-0384-CR

	NO. 07-03-0385-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	FEBRUARY 24, 2005

	______________________________

	DAVID MATTHEW LAYTON, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 34,435-C, 34,436-C, 34,437-C; HONORABLE PATRICK PIRTLE, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1 

	In these companion cases, appellant David Matthew Layton was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault of a child.  We affirmed the trial court conviction in each case.  See Layton v. State, No. 07-96-0234-CR, 1997 Lexis 5257 (Tex. App.–Amarillo Oct. 3, 1997, pet. ref’d); Layton v. State, No. O7-96-O235-CR, 1997 Lexis 5258 (Tex. App.–Amarillo Oct. 3, 1997, pet. ref’d); and Layton v State, No. 07-96- 0236-CR, 1997 Lexis 5259 (Tex. App.–Amarillo Oct. 3, 1997, pet. ref’d).  Appellant now asserts that the trial court reversibly erred in denying his motions for post-conviction forensic DNA testing.  For the reasons set out below, we disagree the trial court erred,  and we affirm the trial court’s denial of those motions.

	Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 64.03(a)(2)(A) provides that a trial court may only order forensic DNA testing if the convicted person establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the person would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing.  Tex. Code Crim Proc. Ann. art 64.03(a)(2)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).   In advancing his contention that his motions should have been granted, appellant, for the most part, again challenges in some detail the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.  In addition, he specifically argues that the victims never made a firm identification of him as the culprit and emphasizes that the State’s evidence shows he arrived at the scene of the crimes just after the commission of the crimes.   

	However, the evidence in these cases was reviewed in somewhat exhaustive detail in our opinions affirming the convictions, and appellant has not presented any contentions here that were not within the bounds of our prior discussion of the sufficiency of the trial evidence.  Because of the nature of the evidence sustaining appellant’s conviction, appellant has not borne his burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing.

	Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of appellant’s amended motions for DNA testing of evidence must be, and are hereby, affirmed in each case.

							John T. Boyd

							Senior Justice

Do not publish.
No. 52500.

protests 17018-K, etc. (New York).

#### Bronston Hat Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2015107EN.01003202.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/32

---

Action brought on 23 January 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Mabxience (HERTIXAN)

(Case T-41/15)

(2015/C 107/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mabxience SA (Montevideo, Uruguay)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘HERTIXAN’ — Application for registration No 10 660 835

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2014 in Case R 2550/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Date: Th~ mcv-c_h ~1s- cd; 3prt~ 

Meeting: lfre1Yt on h~ CA~I\_(.Q....-fjeoy 

Rule(s) Discussed: 

Written Materials? ~ 

Name Organization Phone Number 

SHANH(4"R. p f< f.J S/.J n tJ E /1 H /1 )c,~.t PP/l q 16' 3:l3- c'lBot3 

lrvf~\ {4)\e. Tt<flMe- / 

{y;l31) tyo-zpt--1 J>?f 

~'\r::stvlO flllA -p.f\kA ~iAY"tA_ fJP~ rr 0,/~ Jc?73 ()4~ .r .. Col~ (~Jlic.N1C/\ u[ LA (::>l)) 6~7 -~1l(p
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-1329
JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-35-R) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 10, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:John Paul Turner appeals the district court's orders dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to comply with a prefiling injunction or to pay the filing fee and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. United States , No. CA-98-35-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 14, and Feb. 18, 1998). We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and d ispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-1999    
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1998  
<CASH>                                               0
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         13,882,000 
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0    
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0    
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    20,515,000 
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0    
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0    
<LOANS>                                              0    
<ALLOWANCE>                                       955,000 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                231,287,000 
<DEPOSITS>                                    137,718,000 
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0    
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             3,263,000 
<LONG-TERM>                                    65,780,000 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0    
<PREFERRED>                                          0    
<COMMON>                                           39,000 
<OTHER-SE>                                     22,417,000 
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                231,287,000 
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 4,380,000 
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 311,000 
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0    
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                4,691,000 
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              1,678,000 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,521,000 
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           2,170,000 
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     100,000 
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0    
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 1,300,000 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,988,000 
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      1,988,000 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0    
<CHANGES>                                            0    
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,251,000 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.33 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.33 
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       4.22
<LOANS-NON>                                     1,827,000 
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0    
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0    
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0    
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  855,000 
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0    
<RECOVERIES>                                         0    
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 955,000 
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0    
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0    
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           955,000 
                                                                         

</TABLE>
Case No. 13,703.

#### SWOPE v. COURTNEY.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 33.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1801.

Assault and Battekt — Recovery—Bar.

In a joint assault and battery, a recovery in a suit against one is a bar to a suit against the other.

Assault and battery. The defendant [Mary Courtney] pleads that the assault was a joint assault committed by her and Hannah Dyson, and that the plaintiff [Eve Swope] recovered judgment at this term against Joseph Dyson, and the said Hannah, his wife, for the same assault. The evidence was, that Mary Courtney and Hannah Dyson were together, and that Dyson threw a bucket of water at the plaintiff, and dropped the bucket; and that the defendant immediately took up the bucket, and threw it at the plaintiff, for which this action was brought.

On the trial of the case of Dyson and wife, objection was made by the then defendant to the witness giving in evidence the declarations or confessions of the present defendant.

ICILTY, Chief Judge,

and MARSHALL, Circuit Justice,

directed the jury that this was a joint assault and battery, and that the recovery against Dyson and wife was a bar to this action. Cocke v. Jennor. Hob. 60; Esp. N. P. 410; Broome v. Wooton. Yel. 67; Morton’s Case, Cro. Eliz. 30; Parker v. Lawrence, Hob. 70.

CRANCH, Circuit Judge, contra, doubting whether it was a joint assault and battery.
# C_2017121EN.01000801.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — José María Pérez Retamero v TNT Express Worldwide Spain S.L., Last Mile Courier S.L., formerly Transportes Sapirod S.L., Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

(Case C-97/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2002/15/EC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Road transport - Mobile worker - Self-employed driver - Concept - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 121/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: José María Pérez Retamero

Applicant:

Defendants: TNT Express Worldwide Spain S.L., Last Mile Courier S.L., formerly Transportes Sapirod S.L., Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona (Labour Court, Barcelona, Spain) is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BRYANT LAMONT MCCASKILL,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 123 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2017, the Application to File a Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                          48,448
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,217
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    179,432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               296,097
<PP&E>                                       5,548,251<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                               (539,184)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,198,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,371,649
<BONDS>                                      1,273,188
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        378
<COMMON>                                        27,409
<OTHER-SE>                                   (473,708)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,198,916
<SALES>                                        204,360
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               426,746
<CGS>                                                0<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,790,881
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,241
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             845,396
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,248,872)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,248,872)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  28,257
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,220,615)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.25)<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)
<FN>
<F1>Includes assets held for sale
<F2>Not calculated
<F3>Includes discontinued operations
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RONALD SMITH

CRIMINAL ACTION

NO. 04-229

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE

Baylson, J. April 22, 2021

Defendant has moved for compassionate release and cites these underlying medical 

conditions, and the fact that he has previously suffered from COVID-19, but recovered from it 

after a brief hospitalization in prison. 

The Defendant has presented Exhibit 2, which is a copy of his medical record. The 

record indicates that he was tested for COVID-19 on December 29, 2020, and received a positive 

result on January 2, 2021.

The Government’s response attaches additional medical records, which show that 

Defendant does have some serious medical conditions, but also that the Bureau of Prisons is 

adequately and carefully taking care of Defendant’s medical issues. 

The underlying facts of the Defendant’s conviction cause great concern because he was 

convicted of armed carjacking, carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence,

being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and qualified as a career offender. 

Thus, the facts of conviction are extremely serious and public safety concerns warrant against 

granting the motion.

The Government’s response also details numerous other precedents in this and other 

courts where judges have rejected compassionate release even though a prisoner has serious 

medical conditions, particularly where the facts of the underlying conviction warrant against 

Case 2:04-cr-00229-MMB Document 131 Filed 04/22/21 Page 1 of 2
2

early release from a sentence previously imposed, considering the sentencing factors under 18 

U.S.C. § 3553.

Also, the Court concludes the Defendant has failed to show extraordinary or compelling 

reasons for granting compassionate release at this time. Therefore, the Motion is DENIED.

BY THIS COURT:

s/ Michael M. Baylson

MICHAEL M. BAYLSON

United States District Court Judge

O:\Lori CRIMINAL DEPUTY\MEMOS\04cr229 memorandum.docx

Case 2:04-cr-00229-MMB Document 131 Filed 04/22/21 Page 2 of 2
No. 61727.

#### C. S. Emery & Company *v.*United States,

protests 221920-K, etc. (St. Albans).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of yellow cedar the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Border Brokerage Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 179, C. D. 1923), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ALEXSAM, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

WILDCARD SYSTEMS, INC., EFUNDS 

CORPORATION, FIDELITY NATIONAL 

INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2017-1682

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida in No. 0:15-cv-61736-BB, 

Judge Beth Bloom.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

W. LEE GRESHAM, III, Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC, 

Birmingham, AL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also 

represented by JACQUELINE KNAPP BURT, Atlanta, GA; 

STEVEN WHITEFIELD RITCHESON, Insight, Chatsworth, CA.

 JAMES R. BARNEY, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC argued for 

defendants-appellees. Also represented by ROBERT B.
 

CASSADY; JEFFREY A. BERKOWITZ, Reston, VA; ROBERT 

ERIC BILIK, DANIEL M. MAHFOOD, McGuireWoods LLP, 

Jacksonville, FL; DEBORAH SEGERS, Fidelity National 

Information Systems, Inc., Jacksonville, FL.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, BRYSON, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 January 9, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Clerk of Court
No. 48419.

#### Protest 79984-K of Chemical Marketing Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is a mixture of the sodium salt of the condensation product of soyaoilaeid chloride and lysalbinie acid, sodium chloride, sodium sulphate, sodium sulphite, isopropyl alcohol, and water, and that none of its component is any of the materials provided for in section 601 (c) (8) of the Revenue Act of 1932, as amended by section 702 of the Revenue Act of 1938 (26 U. S. C. 1934 ed., § 999a, and 26 U. S. C. 1940 ed., § 2491). In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as to this claim.
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 629 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 8 

IN TffE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COllRT 

THE IiASTBRN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Cl:VIL ACTION 

ORDER 

ANDNOW.th;s /.~Oayof v~lOJS,itl•lw1~by 

ORDlSRfm that the ~pplit:utfon 

of is 

DENfED. 

in 

Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 632 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            W-H ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


      In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey L. Tepera, the Chief Financial Officer of W-H
Energy Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                /s/ Jeffrey L. Tepera
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name: Jeffrey L. Tepera
                                                Date: November 7, 2005

This certification is furnished solely to comply with the requirements of Rule
13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein and shall not be deemed
to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


In connection with this annual filing of DNAPrint genomics, Inc., a Utah
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Monica Tamborini, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/S/Monica Tamborini
----------------------------
Monica Tamborini
Chief Financial Officer
Date: December 30, 2004
Case 2:04-cv-00769-JS Document 89 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-00769-JS Document 89 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 2 of 2
Department of the Treasury | Bureau of the Fiscal Service 

2020 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 

INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP (FMIP)

Please note that all fields are required. Final submissions are due by July 10, 2020 and should be sent to FIT@fiscal.treasury.gov by 

a Deputy CFO or his/her representative. For additional information on the FMIP focused on agencies, please go to:

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fit/agency-partnership.html

Submitter’s Name: Title:

Agency Name:

Phone Number: Email:

Describe the business problem or idea for improving financial management. 

Describe what innovative solution is being tested/considered.

Describe how this innovation project will improve federal financial management and/or can be adopted by other agencies to use.

Total Cost (estimate): Completion date for pilot (estimate):

Agreement from Submitting Agency to be able to obligate FIT's funding by 9/30/2020. Yes No

Will this innovation project impact one or more of the following goals? (Check all that apply)

Briefly describe how:

Increase the value and availability of 

financial data and analytics to advance 

sound decision-making and insight 

Optimizes and digitizes FM processes

Improve the productivity, transparency, 

and quality of service of federal financial 

management

Offer customers a modern 

user experience that is simple,

reliable, transparent and

secure when they interact in 

federal financial transactions