alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40585 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ERASMO ESPINOZA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-1774-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Erasmo Espinoza-Garcia (Espinoza) appeals his guilty-plea conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission after deportation. He argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the 48-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challengesNo. 05-40585 -2- the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. Espinoza’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Espinoza properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Percy HAYES v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 58237.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 11, 1989.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Wayne County; Lester F. Williamson, Judge.

*1362George T. Dickerson, Roy Farrell, and Thomas J. Lowe, Jr., Waynesboro, for appellant.

Mike Moore, Atty. Gen. by DeWitt Allred, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and SULLIVAN and ZUCCARO, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.

PITTMAN, J., not participating.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131096 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MARY B. MYERS, Pers Robert P. Young, Jr. onal Representative of Stephen J. Markman, the Estate of INEZ MAE MYERS, Deceased, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131096 

 COA: 264667 

Calhoun CC: 05-001314-NH 

MARSHALL MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C., 

JAMES G. DOBBINS, M.D., THOMAS D. 

DOBBINS, M.D., and TENDERCARE OF 

MARSHALL, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of October 17, 2007, the application for leave to appeal the March 23, 

2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

Braverman v Garden City Hospital (Docket Nos. 134445-6). On order of the Court, the 

case having been decided on April 9, 2008, 480 Mich 1159 (2008), the application is 

again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions 

presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0519 

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. 

May 27, 2008 

 Clerk
** **

**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Douglas MacLeod, certify that:

 

1.          Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2021-C (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.          Basedon my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.          Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.          Iam responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted inpreparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.          Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance withItem 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I havereasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. 

 

 

 

 

March 30, 2022
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Arnulfo Jose Castillo

, * From the 3 2nd District Court

of Nolan County

Trial Court No. 12057

.

Vs. No. 11

- 17

- 00218

- CR * June 28 , 2018

The Sta te of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

(Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J. , and Wright, S.C.J.,

s itting by assignment )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Order filed May 10, 2012 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-01020-CR

____________

CHRISTEN LEE SHANEHCHIAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Crim Ct at Law No 6

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1689765

ORDER

A motion to supplement the record on appeal with State's Exhibit No. 3, a DVD, 

was filed in this Court on March 26, 2012. On March 26, 2012 the Court ordered the 

Clerk of the County Criminal Court at Law No. 6 to file the exhibit with this Court on or 

before April 9, 2012. Although the exhibit was filed with this Court on April 9, 2012, the 

Court inadvertently issued as second order on May 7, 2012 for the exhibit to be filed. 

Because the exhibit was previously filed with the Court, we WITHDRAW our May 7, 

2012 order as moot.

PER CURIAM
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

691 

KA 14-00491 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

ADAM C. SMITH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL PALERMO, WOLCOTT, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G.

Leone, J.), rendered October 17, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled

substance in the third degree and conspiracy in the fourth degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: June 12, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
No. 98-10720

-1-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES -COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10720

Conference Calendar

 

CHARLES EDWARD MOORE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ED KING, Judge; ALYSIA ANN HEROD; U.S. ATTORNEY; 

JOHN HEROD, III; ASHLEY HEROD; MARY ELLEN YOUNG,

Defendants-Appellees,

JOHN MOORE,

Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CV-682-P

- - - - - - - - - -

February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Edward Moore, Texas prisoner #824496, appeals from

the dismissal of his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his federal

constitutional rights under color of state law. Moore has failed

to allege that the district court erred by dismissing his claims 

as to all of the defendants except Judge King and Judge Young. 

He has abandoned his appeal as to these unargued claims. See
No. 98-10720

-2-

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,

748 (5th Cir. 1987). Moore’s remaining claims lack arguable

merit because they are barred by the doctrine of judicial

immunity or fail to allege a violation of Moore’s federal

constitutional rights. See Mays v. Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107, 110-11

(5th Cir. 1996)(judges have absolute immunity for judicial acts

performed in judicial proceedings even if the action taken was in

error, done maliciously, or exceeded his authority, unless the

act was taken in the clear absence of all jurisdiction).

Moore’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R.

42.2. Moore’s motions for appointment of counsel, a temporary

restraining order, and declaratory relief are DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 462 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 462

 Congratulating the National Farmers Union for 100 years of service to 
           family farmers and ranchers and rural communities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 5, 2002

Mr. Pomeroy (for himself, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. 
  Thune, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Simpson, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Baldacci, and Mr. 
   Boswell) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Congratulating the National Farmers Union for 100 years of service to 
           family farmers and ranchers and rural communities.

Whereas National Farmers Union celebrates its centennial anniversary in 2002;
Whereas during its 100 years of service to rural America, National Farmers Union 
        has faithfully promoted the organization's mission of education, 
        legislation, and cooperation as identified by its founders and 
        proclaimed in its triangular symbol;
Whereas National Farmers Union represents nearly 300,000 family farmer and 
        rancher members across the country;
Whereas National Farmers Union epitomizes the spirit and energy of hundreds of 
        thousands of family farmers and ranchers and rural advocates and 
        communities;
Whereas National Farmers Union remains dedicated to protecting and enhancing the 
        quality of life in rural America;
Whereas National Farmers Union has been instrumental in the establishment and 
        progress of the farmer-owned cooperative movement; and
Whereas National Farmers Union strives to improve rural America through 
        proactive support and proposals to enhance rural economic development, 
        educational opportunity, resource conservation, market competition, 
        domestic farm income, and international cooperation: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That National Farmers Union is commended and congratulated for a 
century of dedicated service to America's farmers, ranchers, and rural 
communities.
                                 <all>
```
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATION**

|   | (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/                Robert W. White     |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Robert                W. White         |   |
|   |   | Chairman,                President and |   |
|   |   | Chief                Executive Officer |   |
|   |   | May                15, 2007            |   |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to Abington Community Bancorp, Inc. and      will be retained by Abington Community Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. *
#### Arthur Windslow PITTMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-1260.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 8, 1986.

*144James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Michael L. O’Neill, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ellen D. Phillips, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

ORFINGER, Judge.

We reverse the judgment of conviction and remand the case for a new trial because the trial court erred when it determined that defendant was not indigent and refused to appoint counsel without inquiring into the circumstances set forth in section 27.52(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). *See Siplen v. State,*473 So.2d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The defendant had advised the court that he had been unable to retain an attorney because he could not raise the required retainer fee, but the court considered only the fact that defendant earned more than $100 per week, section 27.-52(2)(b)(2), and did not inquire into the probable expense and burden of defending the case, section 27,52(2)(c)(l), or the other circumstances listed in subsection (c), all of which must be considered in determining whether a defendant is indigent. How much a defendant earns is only one of the factors to be considered in determining in-digency. The statute mandates that the circumstances itemized in section 27.52(2)(c) be considered as well. *Enrique v. State,*408 So.2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), *rev. denied,*419 So.2d 1280 (Fla.1982); *Holmes v. State,*448 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

REVERSED.

DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.
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 Rand Logistics, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2008 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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, as amended; and




2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.




Date:
      November 13, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Joseph
      W. McHugh, Jr.Joseph
      W. McHugh, Jr.Chief
      Financial Officer
#### Quinton B. DeVAUGHAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. M-80-514.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 23, 1981.

*760Virgil L. Upchurch, Buzbee & Upchurch, Anadarko, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Susan Talbot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

CORNISH, Judge:

Quinton B. DeVaughan was tried and convicted in the District Court of Caddo County, Oklahoma for the offense of Assault and Battery.

The form of the verdict in this case necessitates reversal. The verdict submitted to the trial court by the jury foreman stated:

> “We, the jury, empaneled and sworn to try the issues in the above entitled cause do, upon our oaths, find the defendant Quinton B. DeVaughan GUILTY and assess his punishment at 5 days in the county jail *and/or*a fine of $100.00.” (Emphasis added.)

The verdict was read in open court by the clerk as: “. . . 5 days in the county jail *and*a fine of $100.00” (emphasis added).

The discrepancy between what the verdict actually stated and the way it was read aloud was not discovered until sometime after the jury was dismissed. The trial court ruled that appellant’s failure to object precluded a new trial. We hold that the irregular and ambiguous form of the jury verdict was fundamental error.

We have held in previous decisions that the use of the words “and/or” in a verdict render it so ambiguous and indefinite that it is impossible for the trial court to conclude with certainty exactly what the jury intended to set as punishment. *Turner v. State,*507 P.2d 1288 (Okl.Cr.1973); *Toma v. State,*95 Okl.Cr. 40, 239 P.2d 431 (1951). Both cases held that the ambiguous verdicts would not support the judgment and sentences, thereby requiring reversal.

The jury in the present case could have intended to assess a penalty of five (5) days in jail, or a one hundred dollar ($100.00) fine, or as the trial court determined, both.

If error of this nature is discovered before the jury is dismissed, it may be cured by returning the jury for further deliberation. *See Toma, supra;*22 O.S.1971, § 919. If it is not revealed until after the jury is discharged, the only cure is a new trial. Modification or affirmance of the sentence by the Court of Criminal Appeals would be as speculative and invalid as the sentence itself.

The judgment and sentence is therefore REVERSED AND REMANDED for a new trial.

BRETT, P. J., and BUSSEY, J., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Carol RICHARDSON v. Johnny JONES, Warden.

No. 86-KH-0869.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 7, 1986.

In re Richardson, Carol; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “B”.

Granted. The district court is ordered to act, if it has not already done so, on the post conviction petition submitted December 26, 1985.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go

to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 2 1

- BG

- 717

IN RE SCOTT ADKINS

20 1 9 D DN 1 5 1

A Suspended Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg istration No. 980220

BEFORE: Thompson * and Beckwith

, Associate Judge s , and Fisher , Senior Judge

.

O R D E R

(FILED

— December 23, 2021)

On consideration of the certified order from the Supreme Court of California

disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction ; this court’s

October 29 , 2021

, order suspending respondent pending resolution of t his matter and

directing h im to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and

the statement of Disciplinary Counsel ; and it appearing that respondent failed to file

either a response to this court’s order to show cause or his D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g)

affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Scott Adkins is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in

the District of Columbia . It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s

disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully

complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

PER CURIAM* Judge Thompson’s term expired on September 4, 2021, and she will continue

to serve as an Associate Judge until her success or is confirmed. See D.C. Code §

11

- 1502 (2012 Repl.). She was qualified and appointed on October 4, 2021, to

perform judicial duties as a Senior Judge and will begin her service as a Senior Judge

on a date to be determined after her successor is appointed and qualifies.
Glyphosate ~egistration Review Meeting with Monsanto 

Monday, March 30, 2015 

2:30 pm - 3:00 pm 

Name Affiliation Email 

Carissa Cyran EPAIPRD C:Yian.carissa@eQa.gov 

A N\.'-1 ~ \v ~'c, 11 ~~ f Cffi(Ct=C() ~\~,\(_ 1'\-:,n: r- Ct\.M\ <2 ..Q{Je.t s~ ( 

c-Jfbv1-t{ M-et~ .PA-/EF£( k . I/ ht.v,[ . . Jt<.!AN'~ ~yc.... ') ~ 

Roso.t'\V"lCA Lov1.1e --j~ cw~o.U.. epA fe.Pc:r> ( o lA \ e - i 4 cw1 ~, l'V.SGV~Vla.. ~Of tt, 

l c ....._ M o ((.. T A t1.::T\. v:cll I o» .:, ,.rio, .._ ,;~-/(. ,"-"/. ,·C"-!.·'U - t:" 

_...., / - " 

~fweJ( ~ & f/4 I (3C'AJ:> Cook. CDfWLJ(~ t-,. .... joV 

\:) G. Y'\(A S e o-~ "2-. efA- hsr=-~ so ~\:-2.. dt."'... e_ f.t""- ~V ' . "' 

e(c.~ e,.; s ~·(! .) N)~~-o enc..s:, ~(Jc'-.1 ~~nh c~ 

~ ~~~ .s 111~~ ttl, ... /·~~~ /7l.!?i'V>A-~V7 CJ . Q ~ 

f eYlhuety u\ k.A 1 o ~flt)tA~ ,l,\ l(<)-t-€ V\11 0 V\ )~. (O l '"T'V fvl ._,IJ 

C.had £. ~~ ¥... t"\ 0 1'1 ~ P..lJ\ 0 c\--ad. e . .) c.., \.@.m "'~ · c t.\ 

R,c. K ke1aw;n tPAJ PRD V~ \ (\ w \ (\. ,\ \L~U..'(' 6 @ ~c-.. C\ 0\1 

..J I <.,) '0 
Glyphosate Human Health Risk Assessment Meeting with Monsanto 

Monday, March 30, 2015 

3:00pm - 4:00pm 

Name Affiliation Email 

Carissa Cyran EPA/PRD Cyran. carissa@epa. gov 

ke!J?U/rJ,/'"/Cija.;cL({?e j'()V 

6{14- H EO s: ~; tl\ . <J"o.rle sMo
[No. 18734-5-II.

Division Two.

June 7, 1996.]

#### Retta Sundblad, et al., *Appellants,*v. Daniel L. Bruce, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 92-2-11249-9, Terry D. Sebring, J., entered September 15, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, J., concurred in by Seinfeld, C.J., and Morgan, J.