alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 162

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Naike Doglod, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20220035

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial 

District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Julie A. Lawyer, State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; 

submitted on brief. 

Laura C. Ringsak, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on 

brief. 

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

AUGUST 18, 2022 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

State v. Doglod

No. 20220035

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Naike Doglod appeals a criminal judgment entered after a jury found her 

guilty of terrorizing and criminal trespass. She argues the evidence was 

insufficient to sustain her convictions. After reviewing the record, sufficient

evidence supports Doglod’s terrorizing and criminal trespass convictions. See

State v. Johnson, 2021 ND 161, ¶ 14, 964 N.W.2d 500 (“We have reviewed the 

evidence in a light favorable to the verdict, considered the reasonable 

inferences the jury could draw from the evidence, and conclude substantial 

evidence was presented to the jury to warrant a conviction.”). We summarily 

affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte
No. 50996.

#### Protests 63843-K/12395, etc., of F. C. G. Importers, Inc., et al. (New Orleans, etc.).

Opinion by

Eicwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF				PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF				HYBRID DYNAMICS CORPORATION				PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Leonard DuCharme, Chief Executive Officer of Hybrid Dynamics Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.				I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial operations and results of operations of the Company.

| Date:  May 31, 2007                                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                    |
| By:  /s/ LEONARD DUCHARME      |
| Leonard DuCharme                                             |
| Principal Executive Officer                                  |

----
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2255 LKK PAN P

vs.

JOSEPH SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On January 20, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-02255-LKK -EFB Document 20 Filed 03/13/06 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 20, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. The claims against defendants Stratton, O’Brian, Woodford, Grannis and

Knowles are dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: March 10, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/john2255.804

Case 2:04-cv-02255-LKK -EFB Document 20 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10050)

#### Webrib Steel Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 5881, etc.

*415(Decided on rehearing [Reap. Dec, 8753] July 14, 1961)

*Harrington Harlow*for the plaintiff.

*William H. Orrick Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule attached to and made a part of this decision involve the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain articles of metal,

A stipulation of the fast has been entered into by the parties hereto wherein it has been agreed that the ñiarfeet ■value or pries at the tíme of exportation of the involved merchandise', at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered Í0f Salé for hohife' consumption *to*all purchasers in the principal markets of the country fíotó which exported) in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary é'otírs© of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges,- and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed re'ady for shipment to the United States, is the appraised value in each case, lesS $ *p8?*OUhttto discount. It was further stipulated and agreed by the parties that there was no higher export value for merchandise such as or similar to the merchandise herein involved at the time of exportation thereof.

Upon the record before the eóürt, I find and hold that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402a(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402 (c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis for value of the merchandise in issue, and that said value is the appraised value in each case, less 3 per centum discount. As to any other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
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 This motion was determined suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY MCIVER, ) 02:04-cv-1969-GEB-GGH

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER 

*

)

RED LION INNS OPERATING, LP, a )

Limited Partnership; WEST DOUGHBOY )

LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability )

Company, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff moves for sanctions against Defendants’ counsel

(“Counsel”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (“section 1927") because “despite

numerous phone calls, letters, drafts, and promises made,

. . . [C]ounsel still has not yet provided an executed settlement

agreement.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 1.) Counsel did not file any opposition

to the motion.

“Section 1927 provides that an attorney who ‘so multiplies

the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be

required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs,

expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such

Case 2:04-cv-01969-GEB-GGH Document 22 Filed 05/11/06 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

2

conduct.’” T.W. Elec. Service, Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors

Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 638 (9th Cir. 1987). “Pursuant to Section 1927,

three substantial requirements must be met before [sanctions] may be

imposed: (1) a multiplication of proceedings by an attorney; (2) by

conduct that can be characterized as unreasonable and vexatious; and

(3) a resulting increase in the cost of the proceedings.” Campana v.

Muir, 615 F. Supp. 871, 874 (D.C. Pa. 1985). 

The first requirement, a multiplication of the proceedings,

“involves an assessment of the impact that the attorney’s conduct had

on court processes.” Id.; T.W. Elec. Service, 809 F.2d at 638

(stating Section 1927 is “concerned only with limiting the abuse of

court processes”). Plaintiff contends Counsel has “needlessly and

recklessly multiplied the proceedings by making and breaking numerous

promises about status of the settlement paperwork, about his

commitments to send provisions and so forth, and causing numerous

unwarranted phone calls, letters and this motion.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 5.) 

However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated how the conduct complained of

has impacted court processes. Therefore, the motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 11, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01969-GEB-GGH Document 22 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 2
NO. 07-04-0530-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	MARCH 2, 2005

	______________________________

	STEPHEN ALLEN BEARD, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 49,044-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION	

	Pending before this Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss his appeal.  Appellant and his attorney both have signed the document stating that appellant withdraws his appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

							James T. Campbell

							        Justice

Do not publish.
Case No. 6,762.

#### The HOWARD.

[Cited in Baker v. Cargo and Materials of The Slobodan, 35 Fed. 543. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
No. 61883.

#### United China & Glass Company *v.*United States,

protest 321575-K/15109 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that the spoon rests, item 2263 in cases 2114 to 2119 and 2539 and 2540, are dutiable at 10 cents per dozen pieces and 45 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 211, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52857), for decorated earthenware kitchenware, valued under $2 per dozen, and that the swan condiments, item 2439 in cases 2426 to 2431, are dutiable at 10 cents per dozen pieces and 25 percent ad valorem under the provision in said paragraph 211, as modified, *supra,*for decorated earthenware tableware or kitchenware, valued at $2 or more per dozen. On the record presented, the claims of the plaintiff were sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1547

MICHAEL THOMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01601-LMB-MSN)

Submitted: July 16, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Brian Hardie, JACKSON LEWIS PC, 

Reston, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Thompson appeals the district court’s order dismissing as time-barred his 

complaint alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. On appeal, we confine 

our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because

Thompson’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s 

disposition, Thompson has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. 

Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE JONES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1933 DFL GGH P

vs.

LIEUTENANT E. SANDY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On September 9, 2005, plaintiff filed a “motion in opposition to defendants

motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.” That document was not served on defendants. Plaintiff

is advised that every document submitted to the court for consideration must be served on

defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Documents not to be served electronically are usually served by

placing a copy in the U.S. mail. If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of

any defendants, then documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on

the defendants. Every document submitted conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner

proceeding pro se) must include a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of the document

was mailed to defendants or their attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See Local

Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01933-ALA Document 31 Filed 09/20/05 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fifteen days from the date of

this order plaintiff shall serve a copy of plaintiff’s September 9, 2005 “motion in opposition to

defendants motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint” on counsel for defendants and shall file

proper proof of said service. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order may

result in the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff is further cautioned that failure to serve any

documents subsequently filed in this action properly, and failure to include a proper certificate of

service with such filing, may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: 9/20/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kf

jone1933.35a

Case 2:04-cv-01933-ALA Document 31 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 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 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE SMITH,

Petitioner, No. 2:04-cv-02358-MDS

vs. ORDER

T. SCHWARTZ, WARDEN, et al.,

Respondents

 /

Before the court is Petitioner Maurice Smith’s application for a certificate of

appealability, which is required for him to file an appeal of this court’s May 14,

2010 order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 

This court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). To meet this standard, an issue must be “debatable among jurists of

reason,” capable of being resolved differently or “adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010

Case 2:04-cv-02358-MDS Document 16 Filed 07/09/10 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 2

(9th Cir. 2002). 

For the reasons stated in the May 14, 2010 order, none of the issues raised

by Petitioner qualifies for a certificate of appealability. A certificate of

appealability is therefore DENIED. 

DATED: July 8, 2010

/s/ Milan D. Smith, Jr. 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:04-cv-02358-MDS Document 16 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 2
No. 55955.

protest 129971-K (Philadelphia).

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstract 48269. In-accordance therewith it was held that an allowance of *2}i*percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese by the collector in computing the duty thereon to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings on the outside of the cheese. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 47899.

#### Protests 31686-K, etc., of Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the items in question consist of pincushions composed in chief value of silk, but not composed in any part of any of the materials or articles *eo nomine*men*371tioned in paragraph 1529, and that the pincushions áre similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 476Ó4, the claim at 65 percent under paragraph 1211 was sustained;
Exhibit 12.1
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the company, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the period covered by the annual report that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the companys internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the companys ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other Talents who have a significant role in
the companys internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: December 17, 2010
    /s/ Yeung Chu Kwong, WilliamName:
    Yeung Chu Kwong, WilliamTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 33-00175, 33-16187, 33-00176, 2-76657, 2-91931, 33-16188, 33-
38361, 2-40012, 2-87193, 2-61721, 2-89418, 33-38360, 33-38361, 33-52760, 33-
52758, 33-52756, 33-52762, 333-16113, 333-56119, 333-56752 and 333-62759 and
Form S-3 No. 333-46329) of Keane, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our
report dated February 12, 2001 (except for Note O, as to which the date is
February 21,2001), with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Keane, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31,2000.



                                         /s/ Ernst and Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 2001
No. 51438.

#### Protests 892041-G, etc., of Van Raalte Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL DAVID WHITE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-02276 GEB GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve an opposition to the

defendants’ May 19, 2005 motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 13, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff shall file and serve an opposition to the defendants’ May 19, 2005

motion to dismiss on or before July 12, 2005.

DATED: 6/24/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

whit2276.36(1)

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 27 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 59565.

protests 247272-K and 247273-K (New York).

#### Meredith Galleries and R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures or figurines similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[No. 11929.

Department One.

June 25, 1914.]

#### The State of Washington, *on the Relation of Northern Pacific Railway Company, Plaintiff,*v. The Superior Court for Spokane County, Respondent.1

Certioraei—When Lees—Adequate Remedy by Appeal. Certiorari does not lie when there is an adequate remedy by appeal.

Application filed in the supreme court March 28, 1914, for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the superior court for Spokane *countj,*Huneke, J.

Writ denied.

*Cannon, Ferris & Swan,*for relator.

*A. O. Colburn*and *Luby*& *Pearson,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 141 Pac. 365.

Per Curiam.

This is an application for a writ of review. Inasmuch as we have held that the relator has an adequate remedy by appeal, the application for the writ is denied. *Burke v. Northern Pac. R. Co., ante*p. 188, 141 Pac. 364; Rem. & Bal. Code, § 1002 (P. C. 81 § 1729); *Jones v. Paul, 56*Wash. 355, 105 Pac. 625.
No. 57719.

#### Quon Quon Company *v.*United States,

protests 201834-K, 204572-K, and 205574-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the articles in question consist of silent butlers, trays, and similar articles, the composition of which is the same in all material respects as the merchandise involved in *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 342, C. D. 710), *The Fan Co.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 42, C. D. 1261), *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 280, C. D. 1423), and Abstract 57391. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of the decisions cited, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” and “D” at 15 percent under the provision in paragraph 339, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by Presidential proclamation, T. D. 51909, for household utensils, composed wholly or in chief value of brass, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver; (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 2% cents per pound and 7)4 percent ad valorem undér the provision in paragraph 339, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by Presidential proclamation, T. D. 51898, for household utensils, composed of iron, enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses (except sanitary articles), not containing electrical heating elements; and (3) the items marked with the letter “C” at 20 percent under the provision in paragraph 339, as modified by T. D. 51802, for household utensils, composed wholly or in chief value of copper, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver.