alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 15

- 0648 Filed May 11, 2016
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs. ALSTON RAY CAMPBELL , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K. Vaudt , Judge.

Alston Campbell appeals his conviction, judgment, and sentence for operating while intoxicated, second offens e. AFFIRMED.

Don L. Williams , Des Moines , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.2

MULLINS, Judge. A jury found Alston Campbell guilty of operating while intoxicated , second offense . He has appealed his judgment and sentence, alleging his successive trial counsel were ineffective in failing: (1) to adequately investigate the availability and content of survei llance videos from the convenience store where he was seen shortly before his arrest , (2) to interview the convenience store clerk, (3) to obtain video of the procedure of , and conversation with , law enforcement at the Polk County Jail, (4) to have witness depositions reported, ( 5) to request a continuance of trial when substitute counsel was appointed only eight days before trial, and ( 6 ) to keep him adequately informed and advised of trial preparation and strategy. We agree with the State that the reco rd is inadequate to address any of those claims. See State v. Biddle , 652 N.W.2d 191, 203 (Iowa 2002) ( noting we generally preserve ineffective

- assistance

- of

- counsel cla ims for possible postconviction

- relief proceedings in which a more thorough record can be developed and trial counsel is given an opportunity to explain his or her conduct ). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence and preserve all cla ims for possible postconviction

- relief proceedings. See State v. Johnson , 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010) (holding that if a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be addressed on appeal because of an inadequate record, the court must preserve it for postconviction

- relief proceedings).
AFFIRMED.
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                 |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (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/ Gui Hua Lan                                          |   |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Name: Gui Hua Lan                                        |   |   |   |   |
| Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board |   |   |   |   |

| /s/ Raymond Wang               |   |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Name: Raymond Wang             |   |   |   |   |
| Title: Chief Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6524
DAVID J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; WAKE COUNTY; ROBERT L. FARMER, Presiding Judge of Wake County; DISTRICT ATTORNEY, of Wake County; ROY COOPER, Attorney General of North Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-182-5-BO) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 18, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David J. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: David J. Williams appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeWilliams v. North Carolina , No. CA-03-182-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 2003). 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
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*DEON WALKER

*Louis S. Avitabile,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Ellen A. Jawitz,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided February 18, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 929 (AC 15725), is denied.
#### In the Matter of Bruce Coopersmith, Appellant, v County of Greene, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered September 27, 1990 in Greene County, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Petitioner did not move to file a late notice of claim against respondent until almost a year after his accident and it is undisputed that respondent did not have actual notice of the facts of the claim until petitioner made his motion *(see, Matter of Stenowich v Colonie Indus. Dev. Agency,*151 AD2d 894, *lv denied*74 NY2d 615). Furthermore, we agree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that the reasons given by petitioner for the late filing, that is, that he thought his exclusive remedy was through workers’ compensation and that he did not know that respondent owned the premises on which the accident occurred, were insufficient to excuse the delay *(see, Matter of Baird v Dormitory Auth.,*139 AD2d 577; *Matter of Heather v County of Rensselaer,*88 AD2d 718). Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion by the court in its denial of petitioner’s motion *(see, Matter of Andrews v Village of Sherburne,*140 AD2d 790, *lv denied*72 NY2d 807).

Order affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2388 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3-Pyridinecarbonitrile, 5- 

[(2-cyano-4-nitrophenyl)azo]-2-[[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl] amino]-4- 

methyl-6-(phenylamino)-. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. HAGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3- 

Pyridinecarbonitrile, 5-[(2-cyano-4-nitrophenyl)azo]-2- 

[[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl] amino]-4-methyl-6- 

(phenylamino)-. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 3-PYRIDINECARBONITRILE, 5-[(2-CYANO-4- 

4 NITROPHENYL)AZO]-2-[[2-(2- 

5 HYDROXYETHOXY)ETHYL] AMINO]-4-METHYL6 6-(PHENYLAMINO)-. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.93 of the Har8 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2388 IS

1 [3-Pyridinecarbonitrile, 5-[(2-cyano-4-nitrophenyl)azo]-2- 

2 [[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl] amino]-4-methyl-6- 

3 (phenylamino)-) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and 

4 inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

7 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

8 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                     177,204,143
<SECURITIES>                                33,040,205
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,987,270
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (100,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           218,572,729
<PP&E>                                      13,332,509
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,217,837)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             231,654,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,722,629
<BONDS>                                      3,277,716
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       351,391
<OTHER-SE>                                 218,302,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               231,654,081
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,880,024
<CGS>                                       12,166,097
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,368,219
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (832,883)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (21,821,409)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (21,821,409)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (21,821,409)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.46)


</TABLE>
SCPR-15-0000605
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

IN RE GREGORY J. COLUCCI, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN AND SURRENDER LICENSE ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C
. J
. , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n , J J
. )

Upon consideration of Petitioner Gregory J. Colucci’s petition to resign and surrender his license to practice law in the State of Hawai # i, filed pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i (RSCH), and of the affidavits and exhibits in support thereof,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g), that Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and record requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the name of Petitioner Gregory J. Colucci, attorney number 6030, from the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai # i, effective with the filing of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, September 22, 2015. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPR-15-0000605 22-SEP-2015 08:59 AM
#### STATE ex rel. Joseph R. SIEGEL v. Hilton BUTLER, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 88-KH-2266.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Siegel, Joseph R.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”.

Denied.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2307 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on certain extruders used 

in the production of radial tires. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on certain 

extruders used in the production of radial tires. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN EXTRUDERS USED IN THE PRODUC4 TION OF RADIAL TIRES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.84.85 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 certain extruders used in the production of radial tires) 

8 is amended by striking the date in the effective column 

9 period and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2307 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 SRKP 5, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 results of operations of the Company.


/s/
              Richard A. RappaportRichard
                  A. Rappaport
                Principal
                  Executive Officer
                November
                  7, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2158 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2158

  To suspend temporarily the duty on alkylated amino resin solution, 
                             formaldehyde.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on alkylated amino resin solution, 
                             formaldehyde.

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

SECTION 1. ALKYLATED AMINO RESIN SOLUTION, FORMALDEHYDE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Alkylated amino     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        resin solution,                                                    31/2011.......
                        formaldehyde;
                        1,3,5-triazine-
                        2,4,6-triamine
                        (CAS No. 68955-24-
                        8) (provided for
                        in subheading
                        3909.30.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4913

HASSAAN HAAKIM RASHAAD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.

(CR-01-195)

Submitted: July 29, 2003

Decided: September 29, 2003

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Trevor Michael Fuller, THE FULLER LAW FIRM, P.C., Charlotte,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States

Attorney, Anne M. Tompkins, Assistant United States Attorney,

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Hassaan Haakim Rashaad appeals his convictions and sentence of

life plus eighty-two years following his trial for numerous counts of

narcotics, firearms, and robbery-related charges. Having reviewed his

claims that the Government lacked probable cause for a wiretap and

that the Government breached its immunity agreement with Rashaad,

we affirm. 

Rashaad first claims that the Government failed to honor an immunity agreement he reached following his arrest on the original indictment. Where a defendant alleges breach of an agreement by the

Government, a reviewing court must determine "if the government

has in fact agreed to [limit criminal liability], and, if so, whether the

defendant has satisfied his contractual obligations." United States v.

Conner, 930 F.2d 1073, 1075 (4th Cir. 1991). Rashaad failed to satisfy his obligations by escaping custody and by failing to be completely truthful in regard to his involvement in a series of uncharged

robberies. See United States v. Crowell, 586 F.2d 1020, 1027-28 (4th

Cir. 1978). Accordingly, although Rashaad had an agreement with the

Government, he was not entitled to enforce it in light of his own

breach. We deny this claim. 

Rashaad next claims that the district court erred in denying his

motion to suppress the evidence obtained from a wiretap. A district

court may authorize a wiretap where "there is probable cause for

belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to

commit a particular offense." 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(a) (2000). Our

review of the record supports the district court’s finding of probable

cause to support the issuance of the wiretap order. The government’s

affidavit in support of its application was exhaustive. The affidavit

detailed Rashaad’s involvement with his accomplice, Bobby Johnson,

Johnson’s involvement in a series of local robberies, and Rashaad’s

surveillance of two banks with Johnson. Accordingly, we deny this

claim. 

We affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre2 UNITED STATES v. RASHAAD
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. RASHAAD 3
#### DICKINSON v. BROOKS.

No. 7274.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued Oct. 13, 1939.

Decided Oct. 14, 1939.

On Rehearing Nov. 30, 1939.

Gerald M. Johnson, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Thurman L. Dodson and Horace O. Pollard, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices.

PER CURIAM.

This was a proceeding for attachment after judgment. The trial court denied a motion for summary judgment based on alleged insufficiency of garnishee’s answer. The issue is whether the answer was so evasive as to be no answer at all. We do not think it was.

 The usual written interrogatories were directed to the garnishee. She answered that she was indebted to defendant in the principal suit and that this indebtedness, in the amount of $300, had been established by stipulation filed in an equity suit between her and the defendant then pending in the District Court. The stipulation was filed as an exhibit and recited that the named amount was “in compromise of all the various claims and counterclaims between the parties”. If the plaintiff was not satisfied with this answer, he had means of testing its accuracy and truthfulness. D.C.Code 1929, Tit. 24, Secs. 287, 292, 295. As we recently said in Young v. Nicholson, 70 App.D.C. 351, 107 F.2d 177, decided July 31, 1939, this statute contemplates “(1) the garnishee answering written interrogatories, (2) oral examination of the garnishee, supplementing the answers to the interrogatories, (3) traverse by plaintiff of the garnishee’s answer, after the oral examination, and (4), the determination of the issue joined by traverse.” The record shows only the first of these steps. In the circumstances, the trial court was correct in denying the motion for summary judgment.

Affirmed.

On Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

Order denying petition for rehearing and amending judgment to read: Affirmed, without prejudice to such further proceedings in the District Court as may be proper and in accordance with law.
AD HOC SHRIMP TRADE ACTION COMMITTEE, Plaintiff,

v. UNITED STATES Defendant, and HILLTOP INTERNATIONAL, and OCEAN DUKE CORPORATION, Defendant-Intervenors. Slip Op. 13 - UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ORDER In Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. United States, No. 2012-1416 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2013), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted Defendant-Appellee United States’ motion for voluntary remand and remanded the above-captioned matter to this court with instructions to remand the case to the Department of Commerce for reconsideration. Therefore, Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. United States, Ct. No. 10-00275, is hereby remanded to the Department of Commerce for reconsideration consistent with the Court of Appeals’ order. Commerce shall have until September 17, 2013, to complete and file its remand redetermination. Plaintiff and Defendant-Intervenors shall have until October 1, 2013, to file comments. Defendant shall have until October 15, 2013, to file any reply. Before: Donald C. Pogue, Chief Judge Court No. 10-00275 89Court No. 10-00275 Page 2
IT IS SO ORDERED. ___/s/ Donald C. Pogue______ Donald C. Pogue, Chief Judge Dated: July 19, 2013 New York, NY
Order entered October 3 , 2016

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 00609

- CV

E.I. DU PONT DE NEMO URS AND COMPANY, Appellant

V.

VIRGIL HOOD AND LORR IE HOOD, Appellee s

O n Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 03619



### O RDER

We GRANT the parties’ September 2 8 , 2016 joint unopposed motion to extend times for

filing of briefs and to adopt modified briefing schedule. We ORDER appellant’s brief and

cross

- appellants’ brief due November 15 , 2016; appellees’ brief and cross

- appellee’s brief due

Dec ember 15, 2016; and appellant’s reply brief and cross

- appellants’ reply brief due January 17,

2017

.

/s/ CRAIG T. STODDART

JUSTICE
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2296 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Caprolactone-Polybutylene Glycol 

Copolymers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on CaprolactonePolybutylene Glycol Copolymers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CAPROLACTONE-POLYBUTYLENE GLYCOL CO4 POLYMERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 epsilon-Caprolactone polymer 

with poly(1,4-butylene glycol) 

(CAS No. 9051–88–1) (provided for in subheading 

3907.99.01) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2296 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS