alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rudy Steans, Also Known as John Metcalf, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), both rendered April 16, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (one count *583under Indictment No. 5985/87 and two counts under Indictment No. 6169/87), and criminal impersonation in the first degree (one count each under Indictment Nos. 5985/87 and 6169/87), upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences. The appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges in a racially exclusive manner against blacks in violation of the holding of *Batson v Kentucky*(476 US 79). While the defendant initially objected to the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges during voir dire, in the colloquy that followed the defendant did not press the issue further by moving for a mistrial. Nor did the defendant object to the court’s corrective action of asking the prosecutor to provide a race-neutral explanation for his challenges and disallowing one of the prosecutor’s challenges and seating a black person on the jury. Thus, we find that the issue of law is not preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Rosado,*166 AD2d 544). However, we have reviewed the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction and find that the court’s prompt action in asking the prosecutor to provide a race-iieutral explanation for his challenges and disallowing one of the prosecutor’s challenges and seating a black person on the jury was the appropriate remedy to employ. Therefore, a new trial is not warranted *(see, People v Irizarry,*165 AD2d 715).

We also reject the defendant’s contention that the hearing court improperly conducted a portion of the suppression hearing in his absence. Defense counsel expressly requested, for tactical reasons, that his client’s presence be waived and the court, initially reluctant to grant the request, agreed to that procedure only after defense counsel’s urging. Under such circumstances it is spurious for the defendant to now claim that his rights were prejudiced by his absence from that portion of the hearing *(see, People v Peterson,*151 AD2d 512; *People v Stoute,*140 AD2d 728).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Kooper, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
<Page>

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the caption
"Independent Public Accountants" in the Statement of Additional Information
and to the use of our report dated February 17, 2000 on the financial
statements of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company in this Post-Effective
Amendment No. 2 (Form N4 No. 333-43886) to the Registration Statement and
related Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information of Fortis Benefits
Insurance Company for the registration of flexible premium deferred
combination variable and fixed annuity contracts.

Minneapolis, Minnesota                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
April 17, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9460]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; NICHD Continuing Education 
Training Programs.
    Date: May 3, 2012.
    Time: 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Anne Krey, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National 
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive 
Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6908, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83e2e8b7b2ecc3edeaebade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3f5e540b0e507f51565711585049">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 13, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-9460 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
OMB NO. 0581-0178

F/H Form C(3) (Exp. 3/31/2024) Destroy previous editions.

HAZELNUT MARKETING BOARD

21595-A Dolores Way NE

Aurora, OR 97002-9738

Tel: (503) 678-6823; Fax: (503) 678-6825

ACKNOWLEDGE OF BONDING REQUIREMENT

Number __________________

Issued to:

This will acknowledge receipt of the “Hazelnut Marketing Board Bonding Undertaking,” F/H Form C, 

together with the “Hazelnut Marketing Board Bond,” F/H Form C(1) and/or F/H Form C(2), and finding 

no evidence to the contrary, handler stated above, to become effective:

_____________________________________

and to terminate on

____________________________________

Your limit of outstanding liability at any one time will be __________________ pounds.

HAZELNUT MARKETING BOARD

By ____________________________________

authorized agent

Date of issue ______________ 20_____.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 276TH DISTRICT COURT OF MARION COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 23rd 

day of January, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was 

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

In the Interest of Z.M., W.M., and L.M., 

Children

No. 06-14-00068-CV

Trial Court No. 14-00010

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Katy Miles, has adequately indicated her inability to pay costs 

of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 9th day of April, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7939

MIQUEAS RAMIREZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (CA-04-578-3)

Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: August 30, 2005

Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Miqueas Ramirez, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Miqueas Ramirez seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal

may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Ramirez has not made the

requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1996
<CASH>                                         169,654
<SECURITIES>                                   133,562
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,711,703
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,882,357
<PP&E>                                         921,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                 823,939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,486,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          392,801
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,398,105
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,415,485)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,486,780
<SALES>                                      1,341,250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,457,383
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  257,439
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,234,129
<INCOME-TAX>                                   397,795
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            836,334
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   836,334
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .050
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .050
        

</TABLE>
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 10, 2015

No. 04-14-00878-CR

Matthew Douglas HAYES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10841W

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s notice and motion for correction, in which the state asserts 

appellant waived his right to appeal and requests this court obtain a corrected certification from 

the trial court indicating appellant has no right to appeal. 

Appellant is instructed to file a response to the state’s motion on or before April 20, 2015.

All appellate deadlines are suspended until appellant’s response is received. If appellant does not 

respond in a timely manner, this Court will proceed to obtain the subject corrected certification. 

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
|   | (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. |

|                                                                        |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: November 23, 2009                                                     |   |
|                                                                        |   |
|                                                                        |   |
| /s/ John A. Martell                                                         |   |
| Name: John A. Martell                                                       |   |
| Title: President & Chief Executive Officer                              |   |
|                                                                        |   |
| /s/ Michael Topa                                                            |   |
| Name: Michael Topa                                                          |   |
| Title: Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel Multi-site Trials.                     

*Date:*                         May 22, 2012.                     

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 4 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Minna Liang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Grants Review Branch, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 4226, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, 301-435-1432,                         *liangm@nida.nih.gov*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 10, 2012. 

Jennifer S. Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-9053 Filed 4-13-12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HELFERICH PATENT LICENSING, LLC, 

WIRELESS SCIENCE, LLC,

Appellants

v.

CBS INTERACTIVE, INC., THE NEW YORK TIMES 

COMPANY, G4 MEDIA, LLC, BRAVO MEDIA LLC,

Appellees

MICHELLE K. LEE, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

AND DIRECTOR, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK 

OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2014-1556

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 2013-00033.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

AARON M. PANNER, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, 

Evans & Figel, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by MICHAEL E. JOFFRE, MELANIE 
 

L. BOSTWICK; VICTORIA GRUVER CURTIN, Victoria Gruver 

Curtin, PLC, Scottsdale, AZ; STEVEN G. LISA, JON E.

KAPPES, Law Offices of Steven G. Lisa, Scottsdale, AZ; 

GERALD D. HOSIER, Law Offices of Gerald D. Hoiser, Ltd., 

Aspen, CO; BRAD PEDERSEN, Patterson Thuente Pedersen, 

P.A, Minneapolis, MN. 

ANDREA GAY REISTER, Covington & Burling LLP, 

Washington, DC, argued for appellees. Also represented 

by GREGORY DISCHER, MICHAEL S. SAWYER. 

WILLIAM LAMARCA, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, 

argued for intervenor. Also represented by NATHAN K.

KELLEY, SCOTT WEIDENFELLER. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 April 8, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-15 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 June 27, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

DemKota Ranch Black Angus Beef Program

G-15 Specification

1 REQUIREMENTS

Beef carcasses certified under this specification shall meet the following requirements: 

a. Phenotypic requirements of the American Angus Association’s (AAA) Live Animal

Specification;

b. Classed as Steer, Heifer, or Cow carcasses only1

;

c. U.S. Prime, Choice, Select, with the following marbling scores:

i. DemKota Black Angus Beef, Prime - Full range of marbling allowable in the Prime

grade,

ii. DemKota Black Angus Premium Beef, Choice - Marbling score of Modest 0 to Moderate

99,

iii. DemKota Black Angus Beef, Choice - Marbling score of Small 00 to Small 99,

iv. DemKota Black Angus Beef, Select - Full range of marbling allowable in the Select

grade0F

1

;

d. Less than 30 months of age with lean color, texture, and firmness, meeting the requirements for

A maturity in the U.S. grade it qualifies for1

;

e. No hump exceeding 2 inches in height 2; 

f. Practically free (not detracting from visual quality) of capillary rupture in the ribeye muscle;

and

g. Free of “dark cutting” characteristics.

2 CERTIFICATION

Carcasses to be examined for compliance with this specification shall be clearly identified and 

presented to an AMS grader for certification. Certification procedures for identification, the removal 

of preliminary identification marks (or other methods of control) from non-qualifying carcasses, and 

control of certified carcasses shall be in accordance with established Quality Assessment Division 

(QAD) procedures. 

3 LABELING

Labeling of products derived from certified carcasses must follow Food Safety and Inspection Service 

regulations and policy guidelines and QAD procedures. 

1 Determined in accordance with the “Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef.” 2 Measured from a line formed by the extension of the top line (including the fat) and measuring the lean muscle (excluding the fat) 

perpendicular to that line in the center of the hump.
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-15 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 June 27, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

4 FEES

The costs of all grading and certification services performed by an AMS grader involving 

examinations, supervision, official documentation, and related services shall be borne by the person, 

group, or plant requesting the service.

___________________________________

Chad Nelson, National Meat Supervisor

Quality Assessment Division

Livestock & Poultry Program