alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-20143

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Steven Lee Smith, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-497-1

Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Steven Lee Smith, who entered a conditional guilty plea to being a 

felon in possession of a firearm, appeals the district court’s denial of his 

motion to suppress the evidence that was derived from the traffic stop that 

led to his arrest. He argues that the red LED ground effect lighting on the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 14, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-20143 Document: 00515822356 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
No. 20-20143

2

underbody of his motorcycle did not violate Texas Transportation Code 

§ 547.306(b); that the stop of his motorcycle for violating that statute was 

therefore unlawful; and that, even if the trooper who made the stop 

mistakenly believed that Smith violated the statute, the trooper’s reading of 

the statute was not objectively reasonable. 

When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, we review factual 

findings for clear error and consider conclusions of law de novo. United 

States v. Garcia-Lopez, 809 F.3d 834, 838 (5th Cir. 2016). Generally, the 

Fourth Amendment requires warrants to search or seize individuals; 

however, a well-established exception to that rule is the Terry stop. See Terry 

v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 28-31 (1968). Under Terry, police officers can briefly 

detain individuals if they reasonably suspect criminal activity is afoot. Id. at 

30. Reasonable suspicion can rest on a mistaken understanding of the law if 

the mistake is objectively reasonable. Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 

60-61, 68 (2014). 

The Texas Transportation Code § 547.306 provides that a “person 

may operate a motorcycle or moped equipped with LED ground effect 

lighting that emits a non-flashing amber or white light.” Tex. Transp. 

Code Ann. § 547.306(b). We need not address whether Smith actually 

violated the statute because we agree with the district court that, even if the 

trooper had a mistaken understanding of the statute, his reading of the statute 

as prohibiting red LED ground effect lighting, was nevertheless objectively 

reasonable. See Heien, 574 U.S. at 60-61, 68; United States v. Alvarado-Zarza, 

782 F.3d 246, 248-50 (5th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the district court properly 

denied Smith’s motion to suppress. See Heien, 574 U.S. at 68. The district 

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-20143 Document: 00515822356 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
#### In the Matter of the Estate of May Leask, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

December 9, 1958.

*Bentley S Owens (Robert W. Owens, Jr.,*and *Robert T. Alter*of counsel), for Chase Manhattan Bank, as successor trustee, petitioner.

*Nathan M. Weiss*for Garrison P. Sherwood, respondent.

S. Samuel Di Palco, S.

In this trustee’s accounting objections were filed by the income beneficiary of the trust in question to the action of the trustee in allocating to principal shares of stock received as stock dividends from three corporations. The trust was established prior to the effective date of section 17-a of the Personal Property Law and the parties agree that the stock distributions should be apportioned between principal and income under the rule in *Matter of Osborne*(209 N. Y. *546450). With respect to stock distributions of two of the corporations in question the parties now agree on the apportionment proposed by the income beneficiary and such apportionment is approved by the court. The parties disagree as to the apportionment of two stock distributions of American Cyanamid Company common stock. The 65 shares of common stock of that corporation received by the trustee on June 18, 1952 should be allocated to principal since no part of that distribution represented accumulated profits on earnings. Out of the 130 shares received on June 17, 1957 only so much of the total amount capitalized as was transferred from earned surplus goes to the income beneficiary, the balance transferred from capital surplus is not a true stock dividend. The allocation of 11.42 shares to income and 118.58 to principal as computed by the trustee in its memorandum appears to be correct and will be approved by the court. Such allocation will not affect the trust corpus and is supported by the reasoning in *Matter of Fosdick*(4 Misc 2d 1003, affd. 3 A D 2d 1000, affd. 4 N Y 2d 646) and *Matter of Guaranty Trust Co. of N. Y.*(Angelesco) (N. Y. L. J., Nov. 23, 1953, p. 1190). *Matter of Harjes (9*Misc 2d 792, 793) cited by the objectant as requiring a holding that these distributions are entirely true stock dividends is not in point for the court there was dealing with a will which directed the trustees to pay to the income beneficiaries not only income but also “ any and all stock or special dividends ” while here the direction is limited to ‘1 net income, interest and profits ’

The objection to the sale of 65 rights of American Cyanamid Company not being urged by the objectant is overruled.

Submit decree on notice settling the account accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of ShopEye, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q /A Amendment No. 1 for the period ended November 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ethelinda Corpuz, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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 result of operations of the Company.  August 7, 2013  /s/ Ethelinda Corpuz Ethelinda Corpuz, President, Principal Executive Officer Principal Financial and Accounting Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.63 MB)

Tags:national preparedness month, DLA Troop Support, NSA Philadelphia

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BLACK BOX
CORPORATION'S FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,166
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,074
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,655
<INVENTORY>                                     32,283
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               104,131
<PP&E>                                          28,355
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,807
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 190,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,786
<BONDS>                                          8,189
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                     130,231
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   190,283
<SALES>                                        299,276
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               299,276
<CGS>                                          151,441
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (415)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,333
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 53,676
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,272
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,404
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,404
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.79


</TABLE>
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1854/2005

of 14 November 2005         

supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 as regards the entry of a name in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’ (Miel de Provence) (PGI)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 7(5)(b), Article 6(3) and Article 6(4) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby added to the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (4).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 November 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ C 261, 30.10.2003, p. 4.

(3)OJ L 10, 12.1.2002, p. 47.

(4)OJ L 327, 18.12.1996, p. 11.

----

ANNEX

Products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty intended for human consumption

Other animal products (eggs, honey, various milk products except butter, etc.)

FRANCE

Miel de Provence (PGI)

----
#### FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Liquidator and Receiver for the First National Bank of Cen-terville, South Dakota, Appellant, v. John A. JOHNSON.

No. 11682.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Jan. 31, 1940.

Davenport & Evans, of Sioux Falls, S. D., for appellant.

Danforth & Danforth, of Sioux Falls, S. D., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court docketed and dismissed at costs of appellant, etc., pursuant to stipulation.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00057-CR

IN RE Terry TRENTACOSTA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 3, 2013

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On January 24, 2013, Relator Terry Trentacosta filed a petition for writ of mandamus, 

complaining of the trial court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel and motion for 

presentation and forensic testing of DNA evidence. However, in a criminal case, in order to be 

entitled to mandamus relief relator must establish: “(1) he has no other adequate legal remedy; 

and (2) under the relevant facts and law, the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial.” In 

re Reed, 137 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding) (citing State ex 

rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). 

On March 25, 2013, the trial court entered an amended order denying the motion for 

DNA testing, which is an appealable order. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.05 (West 

2006); see also TEX. R. APP. PROC. 26.2(a)(1) (providing the notice of appeal must be filed 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2006-CR-6469, styled State of Texas v. Terry Trentacosta, in the 399th 

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ray J. Olivarri presiding. 
04-13-00057-CR

- 2 -

within 30 days after the day the trial court enters an appealable order). Therefore, Trentacosta 

has an adequate remedy by filing an appeal from the trial court’s March 25, 2013 amended order. 

As to Trentacosta’s complaint that the trial court denied his motion to appoint counsel, 

we also deny the requested relief. A trial court is not required to appoint counsel unless it finds 

there are reasonable grounds for the motion to be filed, which is a finding that we review for an 

abuse of discretion. See In re Ludwig, 162 S.W.3d 454, 455 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, orig. 

proceeding). Therefore, the appointment of counsel is not a purely ministerial act that is subject 

to mandamus relief. See In re Reed, 137 S.W.3d at 678. 

Accordingly, the court is of the opinion that Trentacosta has not established he is entitled 

to mandamus relief. Id. Therefore, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
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 Atlas Resource Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sean P. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner, 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 Partnership. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ SEAN P. MCGRATH                            |
|------------------------------------------------|
| Sean P. McGrath                                |
| Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner |
| May 15, 2015                                   |
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 9266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3686]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, 
Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 26, 2012, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Interchangeable Virtual 
Instruments Foundation, Inc. has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, C&H Technologies, Inc., Round Rock, TX; 
and Nokia, Frederikskaj, Copenhagen, Denmark, have withdrawn as parties 
to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Interchangeable Virtual Instruments 
Foundation, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 29, 2001, Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, 
Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 
Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 30, 2001 (66 FR 
39336).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 22, 
2011. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on December 23, 2011 (76 FR 80405).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-3686 Filed 2-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6913
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STACY NEVIN APPLE, a/k/a Satchel Pomme, a/k/a Stacey Apple, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Mary land, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-174-H, CA-97-1183-H) Submitted: October 21, 1997 Decided: January 22, 1998 Before HALL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stacy Nevin Apple, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Apple , Nos. CR-88-174-H; CA-97-1183-H (D. Md. June 24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
LORONIX CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND
CASH FLOWS FROM ITS 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       6,126,484<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,567,742
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (120,606)
<INVENTORY>                                    992,958
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,310,214
<PP&E>                                       4,371,273
<DEPRECIATION>                               (985,852)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,558,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          831,413
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,662
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,707,327
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,558,345
<SALES>                                     10,916,371
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,916,371
<CGS>                                        4,957,374
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,957,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,064,860
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,192,059
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (160,868)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,031,191
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,031,191
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
<FN>
<F1>The Company has two outstanding letters of credit collateralized by a
combination of certificates of deposit and cash, totaling approximately
$100,000.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>