alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6385

GERALD DAVIS FULLER, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. D. KENNETH HORNING, Warden, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-02300-WMN)

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 26, 2009

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Davis Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Phillip M. Pickus, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gerald Davis Fuller appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Fuller v. Horning , No. 1:08-cv-02300-WMN (D. Md. Feb. 17, 2009; Mar. 11, 2009). We dispense 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
#### In the Matter of Robert M., Appellant, v Erie County Department of Social Services, on Behalf of Christine B. and Another, Infants, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[635 NYS2d 550]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly dismissed the petitions to terminate placement of the children, Nancy B. and Christine B. with the Erie County Department of Social Services. The evidence established that petitioners are not presently able to care adequately for the children and that the children’s best interests would not be served by terminating placement *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1055 [b]). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, O’Donnell, J.—Termination of Placement.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daymon Dollison, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 194]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered August 20, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony and certain statements made by the defendant to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court properly found that the defendant’s statement and lineup identification were not suppressible as the fruits of an illegal arrest *(see, Payton v New York,*445 US 573). The evidence presented to the hearing court clearly demonstrated that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant *(see,*CPL 140.10 [1] [b]). Under the *Aguilar-Spinelli*rule *(see, Aguilar v Texas,*378 US 108; *Spinelli v United States,*393 US 410), where probable cause is predicated in whole or part upon the hearsay statement of an informant, it must be demonstrated that the information is reliable and the informant had a sufficient basis for his or her knowledge *(see, People v Bigelow,*66 NY2d 417; *People v Johnson,*66 NY2d 398). A citizen’s reliability is assumed because of the potential penalty which may be imposed if the information provided to the police is fabricated *(see, People v McCain,*134 AD2d 623; *People v Phillips,*120 AD2d 621). In this case, the arresting officers were provided with detailed factual information which would lead a reasonable person possessing the officers’ expertise to determine that the *655defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes being investigated *(see, People v DiFalco,*80 NY2d 693, 698; *People v Rodriguez,*52 NY2d 483, 489).

Further, the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing supports the hearing court’s conclusion that the warrantless entry into the apartment of the defendant’s mother was effected with the consent of the defendant’s mother *(see, People v Minley,*68 NY2d 952; *People v Green,*212 AD2d 630; *People v Daly,*180 AD2d 872, 874; *People v Levine,*174 AD2d 757). Moreover, since the defendant’s arrest was effected outside of his apartment, no *Payton*issue is presented *(see, United States v Santana,*427 US 38; *United States v Watson,*423 US 411; *People v Anderson,*146 AD2d 638).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 56001.

protest 169981-K (New York).

#### Ira Furman Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rayon waste similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Royal Manufacturing Company*(37 C. C. P. A. 95, C. A. D. 425), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 54712.

#### Oscar Heyman & Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 126939-K, etc. (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.
(LOGO)AMERICA FIRST CREDIT UNION
MORTGAGE LOAN SERVICING

Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562
Attention: Master Servicing

Re: Officer's Certificate

Dear Master Servicer:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 1999 fiscal year:

(A)  I have reviewed the activities and  performance of the Servicer during the
     preceding  fiscal year under the terms of the  Servicing  Agreement,  Trust
     Agreement, Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or Seller/Servicer Guide and
     to the best of these Officers' knowledge, the Servicer has fulfilled all of
     its  duties,   responsibilities   or  obligations  under  these  Agreements
     throughout  such  year,  or if there has been a default  or  failure of the
     servicer to perform any of such duties,  responsibilities or obligations, a
     description  of each  default or failure and the nature and status  thereof
     has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

(B)  I have  confirmed  that the Servicer is currently an approved FNMA or FHLMC
     servicer in good standing;

(C)  I have confirmed that the Fidelity Bond, the Errors and Omissions Insurance
     Policy  and any other  bonds  required  under  the  terms of the  Servicing
     Agreement,   Trust  Agreement,   Pooling  and  Servicing  Agreement  and/or
     Seller/Servicer Guide are in full force and effect;

(D)  All premiums for each Hazard Insurance  Policy,  Flood Insurance Policy (if
     applicable) and Primary Mortgage  Insurance  Policy (if  applicable),  with
     respect  to each  Mortgaged  Property,  have  been  paid  and that all such
     insurance policies are in full force and effect;

(E)  All real estate  taxes,  governmental  assessments  and any other  expenses
     accrued and due, that if not paid could result in a lien or  encumbrance on
     any  Mortgaged  Property,  have been paid, or if any such costs or expenses
     have not been paid with respect to any Mortgaged  Property,  the reason for
     the non-payment has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

(F)  All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded; and

(G)  All annual reports of  Foreclosure  and  Abandonment  of Mortgage  Property
     required per section 6050H,  6050J and 6050P of the Internal  Revenue Code,
     respectively, have been prepared and filed.


Certified  By:
Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Title
March 31, 2000
Date

                                With You In Mind
P.O. BOX 9338 *  OGDEN, UT 84409 * (801) 778-8485 *  SALT LAKE CITY. UT *
(801) 966-5553 EXT. 8485 * WATS-IN-STATE AND OUT-OF-STATE 1-800-999-3961
EXT. 8485
                              www. americafirst.com
p120450c.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 12-0450 0451 Focus Ready Draft 7/26/2012

ENGINEER: El-Zoobi \ AG

Page 1p120450c.eng

SAT (concerns) (07/17/2012):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox Related Cases: Analogs:

. //

Human Health Related Cases:

Migration to groundwater: Rapid

PBT rating: P3B2T2 PMN: Health 2 / Eco 3 //

Incineration/degradation product: Health 2 //

Incomplete incineration products: Eco 3 // PMN: P2B2T2

/ Deg Pdt: P3B2T2

Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 29 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

Page 2p120450c.eng

also a potential reproductive toxicant. The replacement

Page 3p120450c.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 12-0450 0451

Page 4p120450c.eng

Page 5p120450c.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 12-0450 0451

Page 6p120450c.eng

Page 7p120450c.eng

Page 8p120450c.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 12-0450 0451

Page 9p120450c.eng

Page 10p120450c.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 12-0450 0451

Page 11p120450c.eng

Page 12p120450c.eng

Page 13p120450c.eng

Page 15
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Transax International Limited
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Adam Wasserman, chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/ Adam Wasserman
------------------
Adam Wasserman
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
April 15,  2010
Exhibit 10.64


 


Summary Translation of Sample Supply
Contract 


 


Note: The summary translation agreement
below is summary translation of one of a series of agreements between Qingdao Zhihesheng Agricultural Produce Services Co., Ltd.
and Guoqing Nongzi Complex Sales Department that the companies use that constitute separate agreements, yet all such agreements
are nearly identical in most respects, except for the specific term, price, and subject of the purchase or sale order (e.g., fertilizers,
mats, seeds, etc.). 


 


Party A: Qingdao Zhihesheng Agricultural Produce Services Co., Ltd.


 


Party B: Guoqing Nongzi Complex
Sales Department


 


Date of Delivery: 2013-01-01 to 2013-6-30


 


Products: fertilizers


 


Party B is responsible for delivery of
products to Party A; Party A shall make 30% of payments in advance, the balance shall be cleared within 6 months.


 


Under the premise of Party B’s errorless
delivery, Party A shall pay Party B 5% of the total payment as liquidated damages if Party A calls a halt or receives similar products
elsewhere. If Party A fails to pay on the date stipulated in the contract, it shall pay Party B 0.3% of the total amount each day
as fine on a delay.


 


Any products that are not corresponding
to the contract shall be reduced at price if Party A agrees to utilize those products; any non-utilizable products shall be returned
to Party B for exchange; any delay due to related issue, Party B shall pay Party A 0.3% of the total payment as liquidated damages
on a delay.


 


Any price change will be based on the mutual
consent from both parties.


 


Any changes on quality, price, packaging,
etc. by Party B shall be negotiated with Party A five days in advance.


 


Neither party shall have the right to change
or revise the contract without authorization.


 


Any dispute between the parties shall be
brought up to local court.


 


Signed date: 2012-12-27
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WESLEY J. WRIGHT, First Lieutenant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

10 USCMA 36, 27 CMR 110

No. 11,641

Decided November 14, 1958

*Lieutenant Colonel Ellis L. Gottlieb, Lieutenant Colonel Robert 0. Roll-man,*and *Lieutenant Colonel Sam F. Carter*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Captain Latorenee J. Gross*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Michels.*

Opinion of the Court

ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

Charged with the larceny of $20.00 from a fellow officer, the accused entered a plea of guilty. The meaning and effect of the plea were explained to him by the law officer, but. he persisted in it. He was found guilty as charged and sentenced to be dismissed from the service.

On this appeal, the accused contends he was deprived of his right to appeal from a ruling of the convening authority declaring unavailable individual military counsel requested by the accused for the Article 32 investigation. See Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, paragraphs 34c, 486. No motion for appropriate relief was made at the trial, and it nowhere appears that the accused was prejudiced at the trial by the improper action of the convening authority. Under the circumstances, there is no justification for setting aside the conviction. United States v Mickel, 9 USCMA 324, 26 CMR 104; United States v Rehorn, 9 USCMA 487, 26 CMR 267.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judge LatimeR concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(concurring in the result) :

Although I am of the belief that the action of the convening authority may well have been error, the accused waived that error by pleading guilty and not objecting, and thus failing to preserve the error for appellate review. See United States v Mickel, 9 USCMA 324, 26 CMR 104; United States v Darring, 9 USCMA 651, 26 CMR 431.
No. 53036.

#### Alliance Screw Products Company *v.*United States,

protest 133839-K/1281 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

At the trial the examiner of merchandise at the port of Chicago produced a sample of the involved merchandise, which was received in evidence as exhibit 1. He described the same as an incompleted lanyard net, which is used in fishing, and testified that it is valued at more than 50 cents per pound. Upon the record presented the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### GOVERNMENT SECURITY CO., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. JAMES NASSO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 73 *N. J. Super.*8.

*Mr. Sam Weiss*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Mayer & Mayer*for the respondent.

April 30, 1962.
No. 53562.

protest 142710-K (Laredo).

#### Raymor Manufacturing Division, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400' the court dismissed the protest.

Cole, J., dissented on jurisdictional grounds, citing *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 158, C. D. 1175), *Fuchs Shoe Corp.*v. *United States*(id. 338, Abstract 53250), and *W. R. Zanes & Co.*v. *United States*(id. 339, Abstract 53251). •
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification
      (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 registrant, 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 registrant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; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 /s/ Paul A. LangPaul A. LangPresidentDate: August 16, 2010
<PAGE>

                     32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CEO

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V,
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kimberly A. Springsteen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of knowledge:

     (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/ Kimberly A. Springsteen
-------------------------------------
Kimberly A. Springsteen
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2006
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

NELSON WILKINS ALLEN,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

KENNETH QUINN,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-35386

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00639-RJB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert J. Bryan, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 10, 2010** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Without determining whether this claim is procedurally barred from federal

habeas relief, we deny the claim on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). Under

AEDPA, we review the last reasoned decision by a state court, which in this case

FILED

JUN 14 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
was the Washington Court of Appeals’s decision on direct appeal. See Robinson v.

Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044, 1055 (9th Cir. 2004).

The Washington Court of Appeals’s decision that Allen’s plea was voluntary

was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law as determined by

the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Under Supreme Court precedent,

a plea is voluntary so long as it is entered by one fully aware of the direct

consequences, and not induced by threats, misrepresentation, or improper

promises. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755 (1970); see Hill v. Lockhart,

474 U.S. 52, 56 (1985). Allen claims that his plea did not meet this standard

because he was given an unreasonably short amount of time (a few hours) in which

to consider the plea offer, his comments during his colloquy demonstrated that he

felt under pressure, and his comments made after acceptance of the plea indicated

that he regretted his choice. But no Supreme Court case holds that court-imposed

time constraints render a plea involuntary per se, and under the circumstances of

this case, the Washington Court of Appeals’s determination that Allen’s plea was

voluntary notwithstanding the time constraints was not an unreasonable application

of Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Moreover, the

Washington Court of Appeals’s determination that Allen’s colloquy amply

demonstrated his understanding of the direct consequences of the plea and that he

entered into the plea without improper threats or misrepresentations was not an
unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. See id. Accordingly,

Allen’s petition for habeas relief is denied. 

DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raul Rivera, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 507]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.), rendered June 6, 1994, convicting him of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the People that heroin is "dangerous contraband” in that it is "capable of such use as may endanger the safety or security of a detention facility or any person therein” (Penal Law § 205.00 [4]; *People v Watson,*162 AD2d 1015). We also agree with the People that the statute which defines the crime to which the defendant pleaded guilty (Penal Law § 205.25 [2]) is not unconstitutionally vague *(see, People v Watson, supra; People v Miller,*106 AD2d 787; *see also, People v Cwikla,*46 NY2d 434 [Penal Law § 10.00 (13) defining dangerous instrument not void for vagueness]; *People v Carter,*53 NY2d 113, 116; *People v White,*185 AD2d 460). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
```

[112th Congress Public Law 246]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 126 STAT. 2388]]

Public Law 112-246
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
600 East Capitol Avenue in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the ``Sidney `Sid' 
 Sanders McMath Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Jan. 10, 2013 -  [H.R. 
                                3869]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SIDNEY ``SID'' SANDERS MCMATH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 600 East Capitol Avenue in Little Rock, Arkansas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Sidney `Sid' Sanders McMath Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sidney 
`Sid' Sanders McMath Post Office Building''.

    Approved January 10, 2013.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3869:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012):
            Dec. 19, 20, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 27, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```