alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS   Document 304-1   Filed 06/08/16   Page 1 of 14

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS   Document 304-1   Filed 06/08/16   Page 2 of 14

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS   Document 304-1   Filed 06/08/16   Page 3 of 14

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS   Document 304-1   Filed 06/08/16   Page 4 of 14

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS   Document 304-1   Filed 06/08/16   Page 5 of 14

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS   Document 304-1   Filed 06/08/16   Page 6 of 14

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS   Document 304-1   Filed 06/08/16   Page 7 of 14

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS   Document 304-1   Filed 06/08/16   Page 8 of 14

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS   Document 304-1   Filed 06/08/16   Page 9 of 14

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS   Document 304-1   Filed 06/08/16   Page 10 of 14

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS   Document 304-1   Filed 06/08/16   Page 11 of 14

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS   Document 304-1   Filed 06/08/16   Page 12 of 14

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS   Document 304-1   Filed 06/08/16   Page 13 of 14

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS   Document 304-1   Filed 06/08/16   Page 14 of 14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

 

FELIX D. WHITTINGTON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DONALD VAUGHN, et al.,

 Defendants.

 CIVIL ACTION

 NO. 02-4346

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 2003, it is hereby ORDERED that the

attached letter shall be filed by the Clerk.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________________

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04346-MK Document 67 Filed 02/25/2003 Page 1 of 1
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8 vs. No. 30,496 9 Otero County 10 CR-2008-299 11 ALFREDO MUNIZ, 12 Defendant-Appellant. 13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ORTERO COUNTY 14 James Waylon Counts, District Judge 15 Gary K. King, Attorney General 16 Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General 17 Santa Fe, NM 18 for Appellee 19 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 20 Nina Lalevic, Assistant Appellate Defender 21 Santa Fe, NM 22 for Appellant 23 MEMORANDUM OPINION 24 SUTIN, Judge. 252 Defendant appeals his conviction of tw o counts of criminal sexual contact of 1 a minor. In our second notice, we proposed to reverse and remand the merger of the 2 two counts and affirm denialof Defendant’s motion to suppress his statement made 3 to police. Both Defendant and the State have responded to our proposed disposition. 4 Having considered their arguments, we re verse and remand for vacation of one count 5 and for resentencing of Defendant. We affirm the denial of the motion to suppress. 6

The State agrees that reversal is warranted on the merger issue. Defendant 7 likewise agrees with our proposal to reverse. Therefore, for the reasons stated in our 8 second calendar notice, we reverse and remand to the district court to vacate one of 9 the convictions and re sentence Defendant. See State v. Schoonmaker , 2008-NMSC10 010, ¶ 50, 143 N.M. 373, 176 P. 3d 1105 (stating that double jeopardy requires one of 11 the convictions to be vacated). 12 With regard to our proposal to affirm the denial of Defendant’s motion to 13 suppress statements that he made to police, Defendant continues to oppose our 14 proposal. He continues to argue that he was not free to leave as the police already 15 knew they were going to arrest him and were simply waiting until he gave an 16 incriminating statement to do it. [DMIO 2] 173 As we pointed out in both our first and second notices, there is nothing in the 1 record suggesting that the police were going to arrest him regardless of what statement 2 he made. Rather, everything in the record shows that he was free to leave at any time 3 during his statement. [RP 104-05, 240, 242] He was not in custody when he was 4 asked to come to the police station to talk to police. 5 For the reasons stated in the first and second calendar notices, we affirm the 6 denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress his statement made to police. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

__________________________________ 9 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

_________________________________ 12 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 13

_________________________________ 14 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 15
**MP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 00 74 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. BRICE WILLIAM WILKE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including August 9 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court July 8 2021

07/08/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0074
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVE LINDER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-16905

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03490-JAMKJM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Steve Linder appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action

arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal without

FILED

JAN 12 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-16905

leave to amend. Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010). 

We affirm.

Contrary to Linder’s sole contention on appeal, the district court did not

abuse its discretion by dismissing Linder’s Truth in Lending Act damages claim,

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act claim, and negligence, fraud, and unfair

competition claims without leave to amend because amendment was futile. See id.;

see also Janas v. McCracken (In Re Silicon Graphics Sec. Litig.), 183 F.3d 970,

991 (9th Cir. 1999) (no abuse of discretion where plaintiff failed to set forth any

facts that could potentially state a claim).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 9, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-61094

Summary Calendar

 

JOHN JEFFERY FERENDEZ,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

--------------------

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A76-334-421

--------------------

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Jeffery Ferendez (“Ferendez”), a citizen of Singapore,

petitions for review of the final order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the

Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ denied Ferendez’s application

for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 
No. 02-61094

-2-

Ferendez argues that this court should apply a less

deferential standard to the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s findings

because the BIA issued no opinion and because the decision was

made by a single board member. This argument lacks merit. See

Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2003).

Ferendez argues that the IJ erred in determining that his

testimony was not credible. The IJ found that Ferendez was not

credible because his testimony was inconsistent with the State

Department’s 1998 country report on Singapore and because he gave

false information to an Immigration Officer in order to avoid

apprehension. The IJ’s credibility finding is a reasonable

interpretation of the record and is supported by the record. 

Therefore, this court will not reverse this finding. See Chun v.

INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Ferendez contends that he qualifies for asylum because the

record supports his assertion that he endured persecution because

of his opposition to the Singapore government. After reviewing

the record and the briefs, we conclude that the BIA’s decision is

supported by substantial evidence and that the evidence in the

record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992); Mikhael v. INS, 115

F.3d 299, 302-304 (5th Cir. 1997). Because Ferendez has not made

the requisite showing for asylum, he was not eligible for a

withholding of removal. Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 306 & n.10.
No. 02-61094

-3-

Finally, Ferendez argues that the IJ erroneously denied

withholding of removal under the CAT. Considering the evidence

presented, the record does not compel the finding that Ferendez

met his burden to show that it is more likely than not that he

would be tortured in Singapore. 

Accordingly, Ferendez’s petition for review is DENIED.
# C_2015279EN.01004801.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/48

---

Action brought on 27 June 2015 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v OHIM (Shape of a service station)

(Case T-342/15)

(2015/C 279/60)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (Płock, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a service station) — Application No 12 416 905

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2015 in Case R 2249/2014-5

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, including those of the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and before the Court.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), Article 7(2) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), Article 7(2) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
No. 54587.

#### —

#### F. L. Kraemer *&*Co. *v.*United States,

protest 708825-G (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO
CONSULTING AGREEMENT This, the First Amendment to that Consulting Agreement (the Agreement)
between Edward L. Moses and Horizon Offshore Contractors, Inc., entered into
the 3rd day of December, 2003, is entered into by and between the parties
effective the 1st day of April, 2004. For the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, the parties do
hereby agree as follows: 1. Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms shall have the
meaning assigned to them in the Agreement. 2. Section 1 (a) is deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following: (a) Consultant shall perform services as directed by Company with respect
to liaison with senior management of Pemex Exploracion y Produccion (Pemex)
on collection of claims of the Companys affiliate against Pemex (Pemex
claims), liaison with Galva, S.A., and the Companys attorneys with respect to
arbitration of the Pemex claims, assisting in promotion of the Company and its
affiliates in Mexico, establishment of an office facility acceptable to Company
in its sole discretion for the Companys affiliate in Mexico City, conducting a
search for and presenting to the Company a candidate to represent the Company
in Mexico and such other services as the Company may elect from time to time
and the Consultant agrees to so serve for such periods of time as the Company
may designate commencing on the date hereof and continuing on a day-to-day
basis thereafter. The Consultant agrees to perform services regarding such
matters and at such times as will be referred to him by the Company (the
Services). 3. Section 1 (c) is amended by adding the following: In exchange for Consultants services and covenants hereunder, the Company
shall pay Consultant a fee of U.S. $125,000 for services rendered from May 1,
2004 to September 30, 2004. Company shall pay Consultants fee in equal monthly
installments on or before the last business day of each month. Consultant may
elect to defer any of such payments for services rendered between May 1, 2004
and September 30, 2004. If Consultant elects deferral, the amount of the
deferred payments shall be added to the next payment. -1-




---



##### 



4. Section 3 (a) is deleted in its entirety and replaced by the
following: The consultancy period shall terminate on September 30, 2004, unless
earlier terminated pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 5. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and conditions of
the Agreement are unchanged and remain in full force and effect. Consultant
    
    Horizon Offshore Contractors, Inc.Date:
    
    Date:
 -2-
Before the Third Division,

January 29, 1951

No. 55182.

#### Alfred Mazer et al. *v.*United States,

protests 153043-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of live birds similar in all material respects to those the *350subject of *Alfred Mazer*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 1265), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 64771.

#### Bel-Art Products *v.*United States,

protests 58/11640, 58/14644, and 58/14645 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of polyethylene bottles and the items marked “B” of steel hospital utensils similar to those the subject of Abstract 63400, the items marked “A” were held dutiable as follows: (1) The bottles holding less than % pint, imported subsequent to June 30, 1956, but prior to June 30, 1957, at 23 cents per gross; those imported subsequent to June 30, 1957, but prior to June 30, 1958, at 22 cents per gross; and those imported subsequent to June 30, 1958, at 21 cents per gross under the provision in paragraph 217, as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108), by similitude, under paragraph 1559, as amended by T.D. 53599; (2) the bottles holding not more than 1 pint and not less than % pint at three-fourths of 1 cent per pound under said paragraph 217, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52476), by similitude; and (3) the bottles holding more than 1 pint at one-half of 1 cent per pound under said paragraph 217, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 51898), by similitude. The items marked “B,” described on the invoices as “Urinflasehen mit Deckel,” were held classifiable as steel hospital utensils under the provision in paragraph 339, as modified by T.D. 54108, by similitude, as follows: Those imported subsequent to June 30, 1956, but prior to June 30, 1957, at 19 percent; those imported subsequent to June 30, 1957, but prior to June 30, 1958, at 18 percent; and those imported subsequent to June 30,1958, at 17 percent.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Statement
      of Chief Financial Officer Furnished**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





The
      undersigned, Gary F. Hoskins, is the Chief Financial Officer of Citizens South
      Banking Corporation (the “Company”).





This
      statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of
      the
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the
“Report”).





By
      execution of this statement, I certify that to the best of my
      knowledge:





|A) | the
              Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
              of
              the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d))
              and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|B) | the
              information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
              respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
              Company
              as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
              Report.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



August
                11, 2008
            
            /s/
                Gary F. HoskinsDated
            
            Gary
                F. HoskinsChief
                Financial Officer





This
      statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that
      this
      statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement
      be
      deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to Citizens South Banking Corporation and will be retained
      by Citizens South Banking Corporation and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 52905.

#### Volkart Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 131834-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the *issues*and facts herein are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that the quantity of cotton reported by the inspector as “not found,” and the three bundles of coco mats reported by the inspector as “manifested, not found,” are subject to an allowance in duty as claimed. The protests were sustained to this extent.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ENRIQUE PEDRAZA, : CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner, :

: NO. 05-1841

v. :

:

FRANKLIN J. TENNIS, et al., :

Respondents. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BUCKWALTER, S.J. October 5, 2005

Petitioner has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter’s Report and

Recommendation, but there is no merit to them. Petitioner has clearly not exhausted his state

remedies. As Magistrate Judge Rueter points out:

Because a dismissal of the petition will not jeopardize the timeliness of a

subsequent petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), the court should dismiss

the petition rather than stay the petition pending the final resolution of the

state appellate proceedings. See Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535

(2005); Crews v. Horn, 360 F.3d 146, 153 (3d Cir. 2004).

An order follows.

AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2005, upon careful and independent

consideration of the pleadings and record herein, and after review of the Report and

Recommendation of Thomas J. Rueter, United States Magistrate Judge, and Petitioner’s

objections thereto, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

Case 2:05-cv-01841-RB Document 8 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 2
2

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED, without prejudice,

for failure to exhaust state court remedies; and

3. No certificate of appealability is granted.

4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this matter as CLOSED for statistical

purposes.

BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________

 RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.

Case 2:05-cv-01841-RB Document 8 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL WALKER : CIVIL ACTION

V. : NO. 05-2070

DiGUGLIELMO, ET AL. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2005, upon careful and independent

consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and after

review of the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Peter B. Scuderi, and

no objections made thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The report and recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2. The petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED.

3. The petitioner having failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right, there is no ground to issue a certificate of appealability.

 s/William H. Yohn, Jr. 

William H. Yohn, Jr., Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02070-WY Document 9 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 57623.

#### Bibi & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 196977-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 55073, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

IN RE: IMMODIUM ADVANCED

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

CIVIL ACTION Nos. 

02-4105

02-4149

02-4180

02-4197

02-4362

02-4386

02-4387

02-4476

02-4530

02-6797

02-6993

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2003, upon consideration of the attached request

dated June 25, 2003, it is hereby ORDERED that the eleven cases listed above shall be 

consolidated with Civil Action Number 02-4093 and every pleading filed in the consolidated

Immodium Advanced Class Action shall bear the following caption: “In Re: Immodium Advanced

Antitrust Litigation.

BY THE COURT:

 

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04362-MK Document 10 Filed 06/26/2003 Page 1 of 1