alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Leonard Corwin BIBLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 3353.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Sept. 2, 1977.

R. Samuel Pestinger, Pettyjohn & Pes-tinger, Anchorage, for appellant.

Charles M. Merriner, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Joseph D. Balfe, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

*10OPINION

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NOWITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Leonard Corwin Bibler appeals from a sentence of three years imprisonment1 upon his conviction of the crime of robbery in violation of AS 11.15.240.2 Accompanied by two other individuals, aged eighteen and seventeen respectively, Mr. Bibler, who was then twenty years of age, participated in the robbery of a drive-in theatre. While one of his companions held a loaded .44 calibre magnum revolver on the attendant, Bibler removed $998.00 from the cash drawer.

The pre-sentence report indicates that Bibler withdrew from high school at grade eleven and has had a sketchy employment record. He admitted using all kinds of drugs and did odd jobs to get money to buy drugs. He has no prior convictions.

Robbery by use of a revolver is a serious crime3 involving great risk of injury or death for which the legislature has authorized a sentence of not more than fifteen years nor less than one year.4 Despite Bibler’s youth and lack of a prior record, we cannot say that the trial judge was clearly mistaken5 in imposing the sentence of three years.

AFFIRMED.

1

. The judge recommended that he serve his time at Eagle River, a facility located near Anchorage, Alaska.

2

. AS 11.15.240 provides:

> *Robbery.*A person, who, by force or violence, or by putting in fear, steals and takes anything of value from the person of another is guilty of robbery, and is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than 15 years nor less than one year.

3

. *See, e. g., Cleary v. State,*548 P.2d 952, 955 (Alaska 1976).

4

. In other robbery cases, we have found imposition of substantial sentences not to be clearly mistaken. *See Bragg v. State,*560 P.2d 391 (Alaska 1977) (15-year sentence); *Davenport v. State,*564 P.2d 69 (Alaska 1977) (two concurrent ten-year sentences remanded but not held excessive); *Marks v. State,*557 P.2d 1136 (Alaska 1976) (five-year sentence on first felony conviction); *Bradley v. State,*535 P.2d 1031 (Alaska 1975) (five-year sentence); *Holloway v. State,*535 P.2d 467 (Alaska 1975) (five-year sentence); *Roehl v. State,*521 P.2d 1240 (Alaska 1974) (two concurrent six-year sentences); *Hixon v. State,*508 P,2d 526 (Alaska 1973) (ten-year sentence); *Hawthorne v. State,*501 P.2d 155 (Alaska 1972) (ten-year sentence); *Robinson*v. *State,*492 P.2d 106 (Alaska 1971) (ten-year sentence); *cf. Benefield v. State,*559 P.2d 91 (Alaska 1977) (fifteen-yéar sentence for armed robbery).

5

.Our standard for review of sentences is to ascertain whether the trial judge was clearly mistaken in imposing a particular sentence. *McClain v. State,*519 P.2d 811, 813-14 (Alaska 1974).
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1351

___________________________

Tylitha Davis

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith

____________

 Submitted: December 11, 2014

Filed: December 17, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Tylitha Davis appeals the district court’s order affirming the denial of child’s 1

insurance benefits (CIB) and disability insurance benefits (DIB). We find that

substantial evidence on the record as a whole supportsthe administrative law judge’s

(ALJ’s) determination that Davis’s substance abusewas a contributing factormaterial

to a determination of disability, and thus she was not disabled from her alleged onset

date through the date of the ALJ’s opinion. See Smith v. Colvin, 756 F.3d 621, 625

(8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review); see also Vester v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 886, 888 (8th

Cir. 2005) (in determining whether substance abuse is material, claimant has burden

of showing that she would still be disabled if she were to stop using drugs and

alcohol). As to Davis’s challenges to the credibility findings, the ALJ was not

required to discuss methodically the requisite credibility factors, and the ALJ cited

several valid reasons for the adverse credibility findings. See McDade v. Astrue, 720

F.3d 994, 998 (8th Cir. 2013) (credibility determination is entitled to deference if

supported by good reasons and substantial evidence). Davis’s challenges to the

ALJ’s amended residual functional capacity (RFC) determination, and her related

challenge to a hypothetical to a vocational expert (VE), also provide no basis for

reversal. The RFC opinions of two treating physicians and the global assessment of

functioning ratings upon which Davis relies did not relate to the period at issue here,

because Davis was required to show that she was disabled before she turned 22 to

qualify for CIB, see 42 U.S.C. § 402(d), and before her date last insured to qualify for

DIB, see Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902, 907 (8th Cir. 2006). Thus, the ALJ properly

relied on the VE’s testimony in response to the hypothetical, as it captured the

concrete consequences of Davis’s deficiencies. See Gieseke v. Colvin, 770 F.3d

1186, 1189 (8th Cir. 2014). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Erin Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of

Arkansas.

-2-
Opinion issued April 7, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00242-CR

———————————

IN RE PAUL STURGEON, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Paul Sturgeon, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking an 

order directing respondent to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of 

law concerning a pending habeas corpus application.

1

 

1 Relator’s petition identifies the underlying case as Cause No. 1280723-A, in the 

248th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Katherine Cabiness 

presiding.
2

Because relator asserts that he has filed an article 11.07 application for writ 

of habeas corpus in the trial court, his mandamus petition relates to a pending 

post-conviction habeas corpus application involving a final felony conviction. This 

Court does not have jurisdiction to grant relator’s requested relief. Only the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction habeas corpus 

proceedings. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2014); 

Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2013). Accordingly, any complaints about inaction on matters relating to 

relator’s post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus must be brought in 

the Court of Criminal Appeals. See In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196–97 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (“Article 11.07 contains no 

role for the courts of appeals.”); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (noting that “only the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings”). 

We have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters relating 

to final post-conviction felony proceedings. See In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d at 196. 
3

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



Binks Sames Corporation:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-30191) on Form S-8 of Binks Sames Corporation of our report dated March 16,
1998 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Binks Sames Corporation and
consolidated subsidiaries as of November 30, 1997 and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
the years ended November 30, 1997 and 1996, which report appears on page F-2 in
the November 30, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Binks Sames Corporation.


                                                      /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Chicago, Illinois                                     KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
March 26, 1998
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1


                                TOM BROWN, INC.

                           Subsidiaries of Registrant

                               December 31, 1998


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Jurisdiction of                     Percent
Name of Subsidiary                     Incorporation/Organization            of Ownership
------------------                     --------------------------            ------------

<S>                                    <C>                                   <C> 
Retex Gathering Company, Inc.                   Wyoming                          100%
Rocno Corporation                                 Texas                          100%
Wildhorse Energy Partners, L.L.C.              Delaware                           45%
Sauer Drilling Company                         Delaware                          100%
TBI West Virginia, Inc.                        Delaware                          100%
</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 06, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 06, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0423. ALI RASHEED SHABAZZ v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 02CR30736
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE. 

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT

USDA, AMS, SCP, SCI 

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
U.S.No.1 Serious

Damage

Damage

FEATHEREDTIPSINASPARAGUS

ASP-CP-1

November2017

Scoreasdamagewhenmorethan1/4inchofthetipisaffected.

Scoreasseriousdamagewhenmorethan1/2inchofthetipisaffected.
ASPARAGUS 

Closed and Slightly Spread Tips. Allowed in U.S. No. 1. 

Asparagus, Photo No. 6 

November 1994 

(Previously No. 6, no date) 
ASPARAGUS 

Spreading Tips. Not U.S. No. 1. 

Asparagus, Photo No. 7 

November 1994 

(Previously No. 7, no date) 
ASPARAGUS 

Fairly Straight Asparagus Stalks. Permitted in U.S. No. 1. 

Asparagu

(Previously 
ASPARAGUS 

Not Badly Misshapen Asparagus Stalks. Permitted in U.S. No. 2. 

Asparagu

(Previously 
ASPARAGUS 

 A – U.S. No. 1 B – U.S. No. 1, Lower Limit 

Asparagus, Photo No. 12

February 1991 

(Previously No. 12, no date) 
ASPARAGUS – SPREADING TIPS 

U.S. No. 2 – Lower Limit. Damaged By Spreading, But Not Seriously Damaged. 

Asparagus, Photo No. 13

February 1991 

(Previously No. 13, no date)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          16,525
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,656
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,972)
<INVENTORY>                                     82,973
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,944
<PP&E>                                         133,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,926
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 290,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,581
<BONDS>                                         12,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,303
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   290,840
<SALES>                                        148,896
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               148,896
<CGS>                                           96,251
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,251
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,313
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,775
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,933
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,458
<INCOME-TAX>                                       492
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,966
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,966
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 738 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 738

   Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States should 
 continue its limited military activities within Syria and that ending 
  such activities at this time would embolden ISIS, Bashar al-Assad, 
     Iran, and Russia and put our Kurdish allies in great jeopardy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 19, 2018

  Mr. Graham (for himself, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Cotton, Mrs. Ernst, Mr. 
  Rubio, Mr. King, Mr. Corker, and Mr. Reed) submitted the following 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States should 
 continue its limited military activities within Syria and that ending 
  such activities at this time would embolden ISIS, Bashar al-Assad, 
     Iran, and Russia and put our Kurdish allies in great jeopardy.

Whereas ISIS has been dealt a serious blow in Iraq and Syria and is 
        substantially damaged but not yet defeated;
Whereas the United States has a limited military presence in Syria with 
        approximately 2,000 troops who serve as an insurance policy against 
        future threats;
Whereas a precipitous withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Syria will 
        embolden radical jihadist groups in Syria and in the region;
Whereas it is in the vital national interest of the United States to continue to 
        support partners, such as the Kurds, in Syria and other locations in the 
        Global War on Terror;
Whereas a United States withdrawal will embolden the brutal dictatorship of 
        Bashar al-Assad and bring more suffering to the people of Syria and the 
        region;
Whereas a precipitous withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Syria could 
        lead to the release of hundreds of foreign terrorists currently detained 
        by the Syrian Democratic Forces; and
Whereas it is in the national security interest of the United States to counter 
        Iran's and Russia's influence in Syria and throughout the region: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) calls on the President to reconsider his decision to 
        withdraw United States Armed Forces from Syria at this time; 
        and
            (2) urges any future decision to withdraw United States 
        Armed Forces from Syria to be the result of a robust 
        interagency process and to be conditions-based.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1337-15

THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

ROGER ANTHONY MARTINEZ, Appellee

ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

VICTORIA COUNTY

Per Curiam.

O R D E R

The Court grants review on its own motion of the following question:

Did the court of appeals err in its assessment of probable cause for a

warrantless arrest pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article

14.01?

The Clerk of this Court will send copies of this order to the Court of Appeals for the

Thirteenth District, the State Prosecuting Attorney, the District Attorney for Victoria County,
MARTINEZ- 2

and Appellee.

Entered February 24, 2016

Do Not Publish
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

J.A. FISCHER, K.J. BRUBAKER, T.P. BELSKY

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

GORDON E. RHODES

CHIEF ENGINEMAN (E-7), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201400325

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 17 April 2014.

Military Judge: CDR William Luken, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, 

Norfolk, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: CDR S.J. Gawronski, 

JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Maj John Stephens, USMC.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

9 April 2015

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
Table of Contents

Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Ames True Temper, Inc. (the‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the periodending April  1,  2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), I, David M.Nuti,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

|  |           |                                                                                                                     |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and |

|  |            |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)   | The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of theCompany. |

/s/ David M.Nuti                    David M.  NutiChief Financial Officer(Principal FinancialOfficer)May  16,2006

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Harpreet Singh Sangha, the Chief Executive Officer, and Herminder Rai, the Chief Financial Officer, of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| | "Harpreet S. Sangha"Harpreet S. SanghaPresident,Chief Executive Officer and a director 
Date:  April 14, 2011
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | "Herminder Rai"Herminder RaiSecretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer 
Date:  April 14, 2011          

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, 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.

__________
EXHIBIT
35.1



SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT



Re:
Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC in its capacity as Servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Sale and Servicing
Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2023, among Mercedes-Benz Auto Receivables Trust 2023-2, as Issuer, Mercedes-Benz Retail Receivables
LLC, as Depositor, and Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, as Seller and Servicer (the “Servicing Agreement”),
for the period from October 25, 2023, to December 31, 2023 (the “Reporting Period”).



I,
Christian Rottenkolber, certify that:



| | (a) | A
                                         review of the Servicer’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance
                                         under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To
                                         the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its
                                         obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting
                                         Period.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 20, 2024





| | /s/
    Christian Rottenkolber                       
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| | Name:
    Christian Rottenkolber                     
| | Title:
    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer