alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
February 1, 1978

#### Cramer v Metropolitan Savings & Loan Association.

(Docket No. 57215.)

Virginia Cramer, *in propria persona,*plaintiff-appellant.

Appellant’s motion for stay of proceedings in publication of decision pending review on certiorari to Supreme Court of the United States is treated as an application for rehearing of this Court’s opinion of October 6, 1977. Appellant’s request is denied. To the extent that appellant’s request for relief also includes a prayer that this Court stay publication of its decision of October 6, 1977, said request has become moot, since the opinion has now been published. See 401 Mich 252; 258 NW2d 20 (1977).
#### Mary J. Adams, *Appellant, v.*Artemus L Adams, Respondent.

Order reversed as to the item of ten dollars and the direction to indorse the same on the execution, and 'affirmed in all other respects, without costs of the appeal to either party.
#### Erwin Weller Co. *v.*United States

No. 7325.

Invoice dated Redditch, England, December 10, 1940.

Certified December 18, 1940.

Entered at Omaha, Nebr., February 3, 1941.

Entry No. 74.

(Decided July 9, 1947)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Ekwall,' Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was the entered value.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6794

JUAN CARLOS OLIVO RAMIREZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK PERRY, Secretary NC Department of Public Safety,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:16-cv-00484-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan Carlos Olivo Ramirez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Juan Carlos Olivo Ramirez seeks to appeal the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation to deny relief on Ramirez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over 

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory 

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

46 (1949). The order Ramirez seeks to appeal is neither a final 

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Wilhelmina Bitzki, *as Administratrix, Appellant, v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, *Respon*dent.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Haedin, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8496 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8496

   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the 
definition of protection determination and protection merits interview.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2024

 Mr. Gallego introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the 
definition of protection determination and protection merits interview.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COMBINED SCREENINGS.

    Section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(53) The term `protection determination' means--
                    ``(A) a screening conducted pursuant to section 
                235(b)(1)(B)(v); or
                    ``(B) a screening to determine whether an alien is 
                eligible for--
                            ``(i) withholding of removal under section 
                        241(b)(3); or
                            ``(ii) protection under the Convention 
                        against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
                        Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New 
                        York December 10, 1984, which includes the 
                        regulations implementing any law enacted 
                        pursuant to Article 3 of such convention.
            ``(54) The term `protection merits interview' means an 
        interview to determine whether an alien--
                    ``(A) meets the definition of refugee under 
                paragraph (42), in accordance with the terms and 
                conditions under section 208;
                    ``(B) is eligible for withholding of removal under 
                section 241(b)(3); or
                    ``(C) is eligible for protection under the 
                Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
                Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New York 
                December 10, 1984, which includes the regulations 
                implementing any law enacted pursuant to Article 3 of 
                such convention.''.
                                 <all>
```
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion ma y contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8 v. NO. 29,906 9 GERALD RAY ZUNIGA, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT DOÑA ANA COUNTY 12 Lisa C. Schultz, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 Max Shepherd, Assistant Attorney General 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellee 18 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 19 Santa Fe, NM 20 Loni J. Hodge, Assistant Public Defender 21 Las Cruces, NM 22 for Appellant 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION 24 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 252 Defendant has appealed from the revoca tion of his probation, challenging the 1 sufficiency of the evidence to support th e enhancement of hi s sentence pursuant to 2 NMSA 1978, Section 31-18-17 (2003). We issued a notice of proposed summary 3 disposition, proposing to reverse and remand for resentencing. The State has filed a 4 responsive document entitled “Memorandum in Opposition,” wh ich expresses no 5 opposition to our proposal to reverse for want of an adequate showing below, and 6 which expresses agreement with our proposal to remand for resentencing. 7 Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we reverse and remand for resentencing. 8

IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

10 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 11

WE CONCUR: 12

13 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 14

15 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 16
No. 44097.

#### Protests 783716-G, etc., of John A. Conkey & Co. et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.
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 Quarterly Report of Distributed Energy Systems Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Peter J. Tallian, chief financial 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:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 9, 2007



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Peter J. Tallian   
|Peter J Tallian        
|Chief Financial Officer
No. 57362.

protest 199957-K (New York).

#### Amaren Trading Corp. and Daniel F. Young, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bird’s-foot trefoil seed *(Lotus corniculatus)*similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Transcontinental Seed, Inc. (Alltransport, Incorporated)*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 163, C. D. 1462), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 52702.

protests 690472-G, etc. (New York).

#### R. H. Macy *&*Co., Inc., et al. v. United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Case No. 18,863.

#### THATCHER v. WINSLOW.

[5 Mason, 58.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island.

June Term, 1828.

Parties — Negotiable Paper — Agent.

1. An agent, to whom a negotiable note has been indorsed by his principal for the benefit of the latter, and who has no interest in the note, cannot sue as indorsee upon the note.

[Cited in Welles v. Newberry, Case No. 17,-378; Bank of Newbury v. Baldwin, Id. 892.]

[Disapproved in Colburn v. Phillips, 79 Mass. (13 Gray) 68. Cited in French v. Price, 24 Pick. 24.]

2. No person can sue as indorsee, unless he be the owner of the note or has some legal or equitable interest therein.

[Cited in Mattocks v. Baker, 2 Fed. 459.]

Assumpsit on certain notes made by Lewis Rousmaniere, payable to the defendant [Andrew Winslow], or his order, at the Merchants Bank in Newport. The declaration contained various counts against the defendant, as indorsee, in favour of the plaintiff [David Thatcher] as indorser. Plea, the general issue.

At the trial, the defence turned principally upon the point of forgery of the defendant’s name, as indorser, by Rousmaniere. Another point was made, viz. that the plaintiff was not the owner of the notes in question, but that they belonged to the Merchants Bank at Newport by which bank they were originally discounted; and that the notes, since the death of Rousmaniere (who committed suicide), had been delivered to the plaintiff by the Merchants Bank for the purpose of suing the same in his own name in the circuit court; and that plaintiff had no interest whatsoever therein. A witness, called for the plaintiff, upon his cross examination, fully established the latter point

STORY, Circuit Justice.

If the facts stated by the witness on this last point are not denied, I think the cause is at an end. Unless the plaintiff is a real holder of the note, and has some interest in it, he cannot maintain an action as indorsee against the defendant. Here the proof is, that the Merchants Bank is the real holder, and the plaintiff is merely an agent for the bank. I take it not to be competent for a mere agent to maintain an action on a negotiable note in his hands, although it be with the consent of his principal. He must be. the owner of the note, or have some substantial interest therein. Pri-ma facie indeed the possession of such a note is evidence of the party’s being a holder for a valuable consideration, and unless the note has been previously stolen, or received by him under suspicious circumstances, he is not bound to prove by other evidence, that he is such a bona fide holder. But if it is admitted or proved aliunde, that he is but a mere agent, and holds the note as such, he is not competent to recover a judgment upon it in his own name. See Gunn v. Cantine, 10 Johns. 387; Gilmore v. Pope, 5 Mass. 491.

The plaintiff discontinued his suit.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3090

_____________________________

ANTHONY A. POLLY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Devin D. Collier, Judge.

January 5, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kevin P. Steiger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kristie Regan, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 60 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5832]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Survey of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use by 
United States Cancer Patients Comment Period

AGENCY: National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health 
(NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the provisions of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public 
comments on proposed data collection projects, the National Institutes 
of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI) will publish periodic 
summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.

DATES: The National Survey of Cancer CAM Researchers' Recommendations 
public comment period will run from May 1, 2007 to June 30, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically at http://www.cancer.gov/cam.
    Background: Title: National Survey of Complementary and Alternative 
Medicine Use by United States Cancer Patients. Type of Information 
Collection Request: New. Need and Use of Information Collection: There 
have been many regional surveys conducted about the use of CAM by 
cancer patients, but only one national survey which was published in 
1992 The NCI is seeking to determine whether it should make an 
investment in the gathering of current nationally representative data 
on cancer patients' use of CAM.
    Request for Comments: Written comments and/or suggestions from the 
public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the 
following points: (a) Whether nationally representative data should be 
obtained on CAM use by U.S. cancer patients; (b) the type of data about 
CAM use by U.S. cancer patients which should be considered high 
priority; (c) whether international data on CAM use by cancer patients 
should be collected; and (d) appropriate uses for any data on CAM use 
by cancer patients that is collected.

    Dated: February 28, 2007.
Shea Buckman,
NCI OCCAM Communications and Outreach Manager, National Institutes of 
Health.
[FR Doc. E7-5832 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
SCWC-30698

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

KAREN SUE MILLER, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON fka BANK OF NEW YORK

AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF CWMBS, INC.,

CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-8,

AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. 30698; CIV. NO. 09-1-1604)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.,

Circuit Judge Chang in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused,

and Circuit Judge Ahn, in place of Acoba, J., recused)

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant’s Application for Writ

of Certiorari, filed on November 25, 2013, is hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 7, 2014.

Gary Victor Dubin,

Frederick J. Arensmeyer

and Zeina Jafar for

petitioner

Patricia J. McHenry

for respondents

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Gary W.B. Chang

/s/ Karen S.S. Ahn

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-30698

07-JAN-2014

10:23 AM
No. 38937.

#### Protests 886274-G, etc., of Alberti Importing & Exporting Co. et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Strohmeyer*(25 C. C. P. A. 120, T. D. 49242) origan was held free of duty under paragraph 1722 as claimed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-11173 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN ANTONIO MORENO-AREVALO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:03-CR-70-ALL-J

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Juan Antonio Moreno-Arevalo was sent a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but he has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from furtherNo. 03-11173 -2- responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 20, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41682 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARIE MARGARET BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-02-CR-786-1

-------------------- Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marie Margaret Brown appeals from the sentence imposed for transporting illegal aliens within the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. She argues that the district court erred by increasing her offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5) because her offense involved intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to the illegal aliens she transported. Because the transportation of aliens in the trunk of a vehicle is specifically listed in the comments toNo. 02-41682 -2- U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5) as the type of conduct contemplated by the Sentencing Commission in drafting this guideline provision and because the district court determined that the aliens being transported in the trunk of an automobile without seats or restraints were susceptible to serious bodily injury or death in the event of an accident, the district court did not err in increasing Brown’s offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5).
See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1, comment. (n.6). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

524 KA 11-01285 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL CURETON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SHERRY A. CHASE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID PANEPINTO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered May 23, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury verdict, of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree and criminal contempt in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of, inter alia, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree (Penal Law § 135.05), defendant contends that the verdict with respect to that crime is against the weight of the evidence. Although we agree with defendant that “an acquittal would not have been unreasonable,” we conclude that, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial, “[b]ased on the weight of the credible evidence . . . [County Court] was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” ( People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348). The court was entitled to resolve credibility issues against defendant ( see People v Cuthrell , 13 AD3d 1224, 1225, lv denied 4 NY3d 885), and to reject his version of the events ( see People v McCoy , 100 AD3d 1422, 1422). “[U]pon our review of the record, we cannot say that the court failed to give the evidence the weight that it should be accorded” ( People v Britt , 298 AD2d 984, 984, lv denied 99 NY2d 556). Finally, defendant’s challenge to the legality of the sentence of probation imposed on the unlawful imprisonment count has been rendered moot as a result of the revocation of his sentence of probation ( see generally People v Meli , 142 AD2d 938, 939, lv denied 72 NY2d 921).

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

            I, Klaus Moeller, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief
Financial Officer of Genius Products, Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify
pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
that:

            (1) the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant
for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), to which this statement
is filed as an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated:  July 13, 2004             By:    /S/ KLAUS MOELLER
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Klaus Moeller
                                          Chief Executive Officer and Interim
                                          Chief Financial Officer (principal
                                          financial officer)
#### Alexander B. Williams *v.*Belle McIntyre.

— Motion for reargument denied.