alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Calvin Ray PERKINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas.

No. 414-97.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

June 9, 1999.

Katherine A. Drew, Dallas, for appellant.

John R. Rolater, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Betty Marshall, Asst. State’s Atty., Matthew Paul, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.

*OPINION*

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated, third offense, at a trial before the judge without a jury. The Tenth Court of Appeals reversed the appellant’s conviction, stating that the evidence was factually insufficient to support the conviction. *Perkins v. State,*940 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tex.App.—Waco 1997). The Dallas County District Attorney and the State Prosecuting Attorney each filed a petition for discretionary review before this Court.

We granted both petitions to determine (1) whether the Court of Appeals violated the procedural guidelines announced in *Clewis v. State,*922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr. App.1996), and (2) whether this Court has jurisdiction to review an intermediate court’s review of factual sufficiency to determine whether it applied the correct legal standard. We recently addressed the same issues in *Cain v. State,*958 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Cr.App.1997).

Because the Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our opinion in *Cain*when it decided this case, we vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court so that it may re-evaluate the appellant’s point of error in light of *Cain.*
DSpace Repository

# Anthropology, History, and American Indians : Essays in Honor of William Curtis Sturtevant

Login

      -  DSpace Home 
      - →
      -  Smithsonian Contributions Series 
      - →
      -  Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 
      - →
      - View Item

# Anthropology, History, and American Indians : Essays in Honor of William Curtis Sturtevant

DOI:					https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810223.44

Date:					2002

### Citation:					

*Anthropology, History, and American Indians : Essays in Honor of William Curtis Sturtevant**Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology*https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810223.44

Show full item record

## Files in this item

Name:SCtA-0044-Hi_res.pdf

Size:159.4Mb

Format:PDF

View/Open

Name:SCtA-0044-Lo_res.pdf

Size:17.46Mb

Format:PDF

View/Open

Name:SCtA-0044.epub

Size:14.36Mb

Format:Unknown

Description:ePub

View/Open

Name:SCtA-0044.mobi

Size:15.91Mb

Format:Unknown

Description:mobi

View/Open

## This item appears in the following Collection(s)

            -  Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology  [60]  

# Search DSpace

# Browse

              -  All of DSpace                  -  Communities & Collections 
                -  By Issue Date 
                -  Authors 
                -  Titles 
                -  Subjects 
              -  This Collection                  -  By Issue Date 
                -  Authors 
                -  Titles 
                -  Subjects 

# My Account

              -  Login 

Terms of UsePrivacyContact UsSend Feedback

DSpace softwareDuraSpace

Theme by
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10249

JEFFREY HENRY CALDWELL,
Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CV-0625)
February 18, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We grant the Certificate of Probable Cause, but affirm for
essentially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and adopted
by the district court.

The court below refused to grant Caldwell’s request for leave
to amend his petition to assert a claim under Ford v. Wainwright
, 477 U.S. 399, 106 S.Ct. 2595 (1986). Refusing leave to amend was
not error for the reason that the claim was premature. Texas has
recently provide d a procedure for testing the competency of a

person to be executed. That procedure remains available to2

petitioner under Article 46.04, Texas Code of Criminal Pr ocedure
(effective September 1, 1999).

AFFIRMED.
No. 74-699.

#### Abbott Laboratories et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50730 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN DE DIOS OAXACA-MARTINEZ, also known as El Can, also known as José Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-00-CR-275-4-H

- - - - - - - - - - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan De Dios Oaxaca-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Oaxaca-Martinez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused fromNo. 00-50730 -2- further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
99-0681 (La. 4/23/99)

#### HEBERT BROTHERS ENGINEERS, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

No. 99-C-0681.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

In re: Hebert Brothers Engineer Inc.,; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of East Baton Rouge 19th Judicial District Court Div. “D” Number 432,465; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number CA98 1208

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J. not on panel.
#### Dwight DAMOND and Beatrice Pollack Damond v. AVONDALE INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.

No. 98-CC-2600.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

In re Surviv. Air Division of Coma-sec; — Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “N”, No. 96-199; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 98CW-1802.

Denied. Relator may reraise the issue on appeal in the event of an adverse judgment.

JOHNSON, J., not on panel.

VICTORY and TRAYLOR, JJ., would grant the writ.
34057.

#### CALE v. CALE.

Bowles, Justice.

The parties to this action were granted a total divorce in Forsyth Superior Court following a jury trial. The wife was awarded custody of the parties’ two minor children. In addition to rendering the verdict for divorce, the jury awarded the appellee wife alimony and child support. The wife was also given title to the family home, the personal property contained therein, a boat and dock, and an automobile as part of her permanent alimony. No objection to the form of the verdict was made by appellant at trial. A final judgment and decree consistent with the jury verdict was entered. The husband appeals the judgment. We affirm.

1. Appellant complains that the trial court erred in failing to call the attention of the jury to the faults of the verdict, when the verdict was ambiguous as to the division of the parties’ real and personal property.

The. jury verdict clearly provided that the appellee *601was to have title to the family home and furnishings, the Impala automobile, and the boat and dock. The judgment followed the intent of this verdict by more fully describing the property to be transferred to the appellee. See *Collins v. Collins,*229 Ga. 222 (2) (190 SE2d 539) (1972). We do not find this portion of the verdict to be ambiguous.

Submitted September 15, 1978

Decided November 22, 1978.

We find no evidence or allegation of an implied trust and no pleadings or evidence seeking partitioning of jointly owned assets. Therefore title to property, including jointly owned property, not described in the verdict and judgment is unaffected by the divorce decree and remains titled in the name of the owner or owners before the decree was entered. Any future issues as to the management, division or disposal of this jointly owned property should be treated as they arise, without regard to the previous status of the parties as husband and wife.

There was no error made by entering judgment on the verdict.

2, 3. Appellant complains on appeal that evidence was admitted, over objections, which impeached his testimony, without a proper foundation having been laid as required by Code Ann. § 38-1803.

He also complains that evidence was admitted which tended to show hostile feelings between appellant and appellee’s attorney.

We have reviewed the portion of the transcript complained of by appellant and find that he made no proper objections at trial. Having failed to properly object there, he cannot assign error as to the objectional testimony for the first time on appeal. *Meeks v. Meeks,*209 Ga. 588 (74 SE2d 861) (1953).

4. Appellant complains that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award him permanent custody of the parties’ two minor children.

We have reviewed the evidence, and find no merit in appellant’s argument. The judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed. *Sullivan v. Sullivan,*241 Ga. 7 (243 SE2d 35) (1978).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*602
      *Torin D. Togut,*for appellant.

*Lipscomb, Mantón & Johnson, John P. Mantón,*for appellee.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131553 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131553 

 COA: 268711 

Berrien CC: 2005-400333-FH 

ALEX SCHEWE, 2005-400334-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 5, 2006 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7286

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SWAIN CLARKE, a/k/a Swain Clark,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00503-JKB-1; 1:19-cv-00815-JKB)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Swain Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7286 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Swain Clarke appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 

motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion 

and dismissing it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.∗

 Our review of the record 

confirms that the district court properly construed Clarke’s Rule 60(b) motion as a 

successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain 

prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); McRae, 

793 F.3d at 397-400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 

(4th Cir. 2003), we construe Clarke’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application 

to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Clarke’s 

claim does not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny 

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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

∗ A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s 

jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 

motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7286 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26822-26823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9061]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2007-28120]

Towing Safety Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Teleconference 
Meeting

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a teleconference of the Towing Safety 
Advisory Committee (TSAC). The purpose of this teleconference is for 
TSAC to present its comments to the Coast Guard on certain draft 
regulatory text contemplated for the Notice of Proposed Rule Making for 
Towing Vessel Inspection currently under development.

DATES: The teleconference call will take place on Tuesday, May 22, 
2007, from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m. EDT. The meeting may adjourn early if 
all business is finished.

ADDRESSES: Members of the public may participate by coming to Room 
6319, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20593-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this notice, contact 
Mr. Gerald Miante, TSAC's Assistant Executive Director, telephone 202-
372-1401, fax 202-372-1926, or e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TSAC advises, consults with, and makes 
recommendations to the Secretary DHS on matters relating to shallow-
draft inland and coastal waterway navigation and towing safety. Notice 
of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). Members of the public may also 
participate in this meeting by dialing 1-866-675-0373, pass code 
8388087. Public participation is welcomed; however, the number of 
teleconference lines is limited and

[[Page 26823]]

available on a first-come, first-served basis.

Tentative Agenda

     Welcome and Opening Remarks--TSAC Chairman (11 a.m.).
     Discussion, presentation and voting of the Committee's 
recommendations to the Coast Guard on draft text for a Towing Vessel 
Inspection rulemaking.
     Public comment period (as time permits).
     Meeting adjourned--(1 p.m.).

Procedural

    This meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting 
may adjourn early if all business is finished. At the Chair's 
discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during 
the meeting. If you would like to make an oral presentation at the 
meeting, please notify Mr. Miante no later than May 17, 2007.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with 
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact 
Mr. Miante as soon as possible.

    Dated: May 4, 2007.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of National and International Standards, Assistant Commandant 
for Prevention.
[FR Doc. E7-9061 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
```
Before the Third Division,

January 31, 1940

No. 43171.

#### Protests 908881-G, etc., of Q. W. Lung & Co. et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of fish in lard with beans the same as the commodity the subject of Abstract 42516. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained.
[Cite as State Farm Ins. v. Univ. of Akron , 2010-Ohio-3641.]



# Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center
65 South Front Street, Third Floor
Columbus, OH 43215

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263

www.cco.state.oh.us

STATE FARM INSURANCE

Plaintiff

v.

UNIVERSITY OF AKRON

Defendant

Case No. 2010-01395-AD

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

{¶ 1} On January 21, 2010, this court issued an entry ordering plaintiff entity to

obtain counsel to proceed with this claim, to file a notice of appearance, and an

amended complaint with this court. Plaintiff entity was also ordered to submit the

$25.00 filing fee or a poverty statement or face dismissal of its case. Plaintiff entity has

failed to comply with the court orders. Therefore, plaintiff entity’s case is DISMISSED

without prejudice .3pursuant to Civ.R. 41. The court shall absorb the costs of this case.

________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk

Entry cc:Case No. 2010-01395-AD - 2 - ENTRY

State Farm Insurance Kay Edgcomb

P.O. Box 2371 Bloomington, Illinois 61702-2371

DRB/laa

Filed 3/19/10 Sent to S.C. reporter 8/6/10
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Galen Clifton SHAWVER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-6727.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 27, 2005.

Decided: Sept. 30, 2005.

Galen Clifton Shawver, Appellant Pro Se.

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Galen Clifton Shawver seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on February 22, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on May 8, 2005.* Because Shawver failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

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.

*DISMISSED*

*

 We have given Shawver the benefit of *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), in determining the date in which he filed materials in the district court.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                      SCHEDULE OF CERTAIN OFFICERS WHO ARE
                        PARTIES TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS



         Charles J. Bechtel
         David Bucci
         James L. M. Chen
         Warren W. Dettinger
         Reinoud G. J. Drenth
         Donald E. Eagon, Jr.
         Jack E. Finefrock
         Charee Francis-Vogelsang
         Bartholomew J. Frazzitta
         Michael J. Hillock
         Larry D. Ingram
         Robert W. Mahoney
         Dennis M. Moriarty
         Walden W. O'Dell
         Toni J. Portmann
         Anthony J. Rusciano
         Charles B. Scheurer
         Robert L. Stockamp
         Alben W. Warf
         Ernesto R. Unanue
         Robert J. Warren
| Ø | Contract      number: 4431702009C000000000; |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Maximum      amount of credit facilities to be provided: RMB 200    million; |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Term:      from March 25, 2009 to March 25,2010; |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Purpose      of the loan is to provide working capital for the    Debtor; |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Remedies      in the event of breach of contract include adjustment of the credit      amount, suspension of credit, imposition of punitive interest and overdue      interest, an increase of guarantee deposit and the call back of loan      principal and interest beforematurity. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Definitions      and explanations |
|--------|-----------------------------------|

| Ø | Prerequisite      for using the comprehensive creditfacility |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Procedure      on using the comprehensive creditfacility |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Declaration      and Guarantee of the Debtor |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Obligations      of the Debtor |
|--------|--------------------------------|

| Ø | Transferring      of the credit facility under the maximumamount |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Disputation      settlement |
|--------|-----------------------------|

| Ø | Fee |
|--------|-----|

| Ø | Attachment |
|--------|------------|

| Ø | Validity |
|--------|----------|

| Ø | Notification |
|--------|--------------|

----
No. 54888.

#### American Meshed Fur Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 125400-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currencies involved in the liquidation of the entries for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currencies of the invoices covered by certain enumerated entries should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
Before the Third Division,

December 14, 1949

No. 53816.

protests 109797-K, etc. (New York).

#### Federal Wine & Liquor Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Delmar BRADFORD.

No. 99-KK-0996.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 14, 1999.

PER CURIAM.*

The ruling of the trial court recusing Judge Buras from this case is vacated and set aside as there is no evidence to support her recusal. The case is, remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

*

 Marcus, J., not on panel. Rule IV, Part 2, Sec. 3.