alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Barron Saunders, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered May 4, 1989, *366convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him as a predicate violent felon to an indeterminate prison term of from *IVi*to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court erred in limiting the proof of various prior inconsistent statements made by the complaining witness at an earlier trial, which ended in a mistrial. In each of the statements, as shown by the transcript of the earlier trial, the complainant had attributed certain conduct to the co-defendant, albeit not by name. Nevertheless, each reference in the transcript to "this guy”, or description based upon attire or otherwise, was accompanied, without objection, by a statement by the trial court that the witness was indicating the co-defendant. We would observe that the very purpose of the remarks made by the trial court at the first trial was to preserve an intelligible record, and we discern no cognizable basis for limiting cross-examination of the witness to the words spoken by him without reference to the essential explanations provided by the Trial Justice. In essence, the Court’s interpolations were adopted by the witness as part of his earlier answers.

Nonetheless, we find the error to be harmless under the circumstances. Counsel sought to establish that the complainant had previously testified that it was co-defendant Okanta rather than defendant who wore a green top during the robbery and who subsequently volunteered (while held in police custody) to disclose the whereabouts of complainant’s stolen jewelry. These inconsistencies were otherwise brought to the jury’s attention through cross-examinations conducted by the two defense counsel.

In light of the fact that the cross-examinations alerted the jury to the apparent inconsistencies in complainant’s testimony, and in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, the court’s evidentiary error could not have affected the outcome of the trial.

Insofar as defendant argues for the first time on appeal that his right to remain silent was violated by his co-defendant’s attorney’s comments in his summation, and by the trial court’s charge to the jury, the arguments are unpreserved (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Autry,*75 NY2d 836). In any event, defendant’s claim that the court, by juxtaposing its "no adverse inference charge” with its "interested witness charge”, highlighted the contrast between defendant’s decision not to testify and Okanta’s willingness to take the stand, is not borne out by the record.

*367With regard to the summation comment by Okanta’s counsel suggesting that an accused person would be expected to take the witness stand and deny criminal liability, at no time during Okanta’s counsel’s summation was defendant ever mentioned. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1160 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the 

Molalla River in the State of Oregon as components of the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

Mr. SCHRADER (for himself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. DEFAZIO, and Ms. 

BONAMICI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 

segments of the Molalla River in the State of Oregon 

as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Molalla River Wild 

5 and Scenic Rivers Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1160 IH

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SEG2 MENTS, MOLALLA RIVER, OREGON. 

3 Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

4 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(ll) MOLALLA RIVER, OREGON.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The following segments in 

8 the State of Oregon, to be administered by the Sec9 retary of the Interior as a recreational river: 

10 ‘‘(i) MOLALLA RIVER.—The approximately 

11 15.1-mile segment from the southern boundary 

12 line of T. 7 S., R. 4 E., sec. 19, downstream 

13 to the edge of the Bureau of Land Management 

14 boundary in T. 6 S., R. 3 E., sec. 7. 

15 ‘‘(ii) TABLE ROCK FORK MOLALLA

16 RIVER.—The approximately 6.2-mile segment 

17 from the easternmost Bureau of Land Management boundary line in the NE1 18 ⁄4 sec. 4, T. 7 S., 

19 R. 4 E., downstream to the confluence with the 

20 Molalla River. 

21 ‘‘(B) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid existing 

22 rights, the Federal land within the boundaries of the 

23 river segments designated by subparagraph (A) is 

24 withdrawn from all forms of— 

25 ‘‘(i) entry, appropriation, or disposal under 

26 the public land laws; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1160 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) location, entry, and patent under the 

2 mining laws; and 

3 ‘‘(iii) disposition under all laws relating to 

4 mineral and geothermal leasing or mineral ma5 terials.’’. 

6 SEC. 3. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS. 

7 Section 3(a)(102) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

8 (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(102)) is amended— 

9 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘SQUAW

10 CREEK’’ and inserting ‘‘WHYCHUS CREEK’’; 

11 (2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

12 by striking ‘‘McAllister Ditch, including the Soap 

13 Fork Squaw Creek, the North Fork, the South 

14 Fork, the East and West Forks of Park Creek, and 

15 Park Creek Fork’’ and inserting ‘‘Plainview Ditch, 

16 including the Soap Creek, the North and South 

17 Forks of Whychus Creek, the East and West Forks 

18 of Park Creek, and Park Creek’’; and 

19 (3) in subparagraph (B), by striking 

20 ‘‘McAllister Ditch’’ and inserting ‘‘Plainview Ditch’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2016202EN.01010601.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/106 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/106

---

Article 135

(ex Article 115 TEC)

(ex Article 115 TEC)

For matters within the scope of Articles 121(4), 126 with the exception of paragraph 14, 138, 140(1), 140(2), first subparagraph, 140(3) and 219, the Council or a Member State may request the Commission to make a recommendation or a proposal, as appropriate. The Commission shall examine this request and submit its conclusions to the Council without delay.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7379

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AQUABEUS MOORE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:15-cr-00386-RMG-2)

Submitted: April 28, 2022 Decided: June 3, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aquabeus Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7379 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/03/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Aquabeus Moore appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have reviewed the 

record on appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Moore’s motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (providing 

standard), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Accordingly, we deny Moore’s motion for 

appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States 

v. Moore, No. 2:15-cr-00386-RMG-2 (D.S.C. Sept. 13, 2021). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7379 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/03/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE V

AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE

AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE

CHAPTER 1

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 70

Without prejudice to Articles 258, 259 and 260, the Council may, on a proposal from the Commission, adopt measures laying down the arrangements whereby Member States, in collaboration with the Commission, conduct objective and impartial evaluation of the implementation of the Union policies referred to in this Title by Member States' authorities, in particular in order to facilitate full application of the principle of mutual recognition. The European Parliament and national Parliaments shall be informed of the content and results of the evaluation.

---
#### Lewis Duane ALTMAN, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-77-92.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Aug. 15, 1977.

*312Clarke L. Randall, App. Public Defender, Tulsa County, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Robert L. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., James W. McCann, Legal Intern, for appellee.

OPINION

BRETT, Judge:

Appellant, Lewis Duane Altman, Jr., hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court, Tulsa County, Case No. CRF-76-1628, with the offense of Robbery by Force, in violation of 21 O.S. 1971, § 791. In a jury trial he was found guilty and was sentenced to five (5) years’ imprisonment, and from that judgment and sentence defendant brings this timely appeal.

A complete statement of the facts of the case is unnecessary, since the defendant’s sole assignment of error deals with events which transpired after his arrest. At the trial the State introduced into evidence a statement made by the defendant to police officers. Defense counsel’s objection to the admission of the statement was overruled, after a *Jackson v. Denno*
      *1*
      **in camera hearing, and on appeal it is urged that the trial court committed error in thus admitting the statement.

The only testimony presented at the in camera hearing held by the trial court for the purpose of determining voluntariness was that of one of the interrogating officers. He testified that the defendant signed a waiver of his *Miranda*rights after they were read to him, and that after the substance of his statement was reduced to writing the defendant read and signed that written statement. The officer also stated that the defendant was expressly asked whether he could read, and that the defendant said that he could.

The defendant presented no other evidence at this hearing, and it is apparent that the trial court was correct in ruling that the statement should be admitted. In his brief, the defendant argues that the statement was not given voluntarily, and that he did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights to remain silent and to confer with an attorney prior to questioning. However, all of the evidence that defendant relies upon in support of his argument is testimony given in open court after the in camera hearing and after the trial court had ruled on the admissibility of the statement. Such testimony was not before the judge when he made his ruling, and is not material to that ruling.

In the instant case this distinction is of no consequence, since even the addition of the later testimony, put on during defendant’s case in chief, will not render the statement inadmissible; however, in the future attorneys would be well advised to insure that the court has all relevant evidence before it during the *Jackson*v. *Denno*hearing on the motion to suppress the confession.

The defendant’s assignment of error is without merit, and the judgment and sentence of the trial court is *AFFIRMED.*

BUSSEY, P. J., concurs.

. *Jackson*v. *Denno,*378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, 1 A.L.R.3d 1205 (1964).
Order filed April 15, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00595-CR

____________

CARL LEE SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1247979

ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's Exhibit 1, a CD 

of statement; State's Exhibit 2, a CD of statement; State's Exhibit 3, a CD of

Statement; State's Exhibit 4, a CD of statement; State's Exhibit 30, a scene 
video; State's Exhibit76, a security camera video; State's Exhibit 76A, a video, 

State's Exhibit 98, defendant's statement; State's Exhibit 99, defendant's 

statement; State's Exhibit 100, defendant's statement; State's Exhibit 101, 

defendant's statement.

The clerk of the 351st District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this 

court the original of State's Exhibit 3, a CD of Statement; State's Exhibit 4, a CD of 

statement; State's Exhibit 30, a scene video; State's Exhibit76, a security camera 

video; State's Exhibit 76A, a video, State's Exhibit 98, defendant's statement; 

State's Exhibit 99, defendant's statement; State's Exhibit 100, defendant's 

statement; State's Exhibit 101, defendant's statement, on or before April 27, 2015.

The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original 

exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon 

completion of inspection, to return the original of State's Exhibit 3, a CD of 

Statement; State's Exhibit 4, a CD of statement; State's Exhibit 30, a scene video; 

State's Exhibit76, a security camera video; State's Exhibit 76A, a video, State's 

Exhibit 98, defendant's statement; State's Exhibit 99, defendant's statement; State's 

Exhibit 100, defendant's statement; State's Exhibit 101, defendant's statement, to 

the clerk of the 351st District Court.

 PER CURIAM
|                          |         |                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|--------------------------|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|
| Date: March 28, 2023 | By: | /s/    Gerald Bodzy   |  |
|                     |    | Gerald Bodzy, Trustee                                       |  |
|                     |    |                                                             |  |
| Date: March 28, 2023 | By: | /s/    John Garilli             |  |
|                          |         | John Garilli, Trustee                                       |  |
|                          |         |                                                             |  |
| Date: March 28, 2023 | By: | /s/    Joe C. McKinney          |  |
|                          |         | Joe C. McKinney, Trustee                                    |  |
FAIRCHILD INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION



FAIRCHILD INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

Suite 600

595 Hornby Street

Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 1A4

 

April 30, 2002

PETER MILES

Dear Peter:

Re:Fairchild International Corporation (the "Corporation") - Stock Option Agreement

This letter will serve to confirm that, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it has been agreed to amend the incentive stock option agreement (the "Stock Option Agreement") entered into between yourself and the Corporation dated effective September 7, 2001 respecting the issuance to you of stock options (the "Options") to purchase up to an aggregate of 450,000 common shares in the capital stock of the Corporation at an exercise price of $0.25 per share exercisable until September 7, 2004.

Pursuant to section 6 of the terms and conditions attached to and forming part of the Stock Option Agreement, , the Stock Option Agreement shall be and is hereby amended to provide that the exercise price of the Options will be $0.06 per share.

The Stock Option Agreement, as amended hereby, shall continue in full force and effect.

Yours truly,

FAIRCHILD INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

Per: /s/ Robert Grace

Robert Grace,

President

 

I, PETER MILES, hereby consent to and agree with the foregoing, this 1st day of May, 2002.

/s/ Peter Miles

_________________________________________

PETER MILES
# L_2012112EN.01002101.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

ACT

ACT

concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

PART FIVE

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT

TITLE III

FINAL PROVISIONS

FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 55

A certified copy of the international agreements deposited in the archives of the General Secretariat of the Council shall be transmitted to the Government of the Republic of Croatia by the Secretary-General.

---
Order entered November 22, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 00191

- CV

FIELDALE FARMS CORPORATION AND OZARK MOUNTAIN POULTRY, INC. , Appellant s

V.

SOMMA FOOD GROUP, LLC AND HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 00698

O RDER Before the court is Appellee House of Raeford Farms, Inc.’s “Motion to
Postpone Oral Arg ument Pending Bill of Review Proceeding and, i n the Alternative, Enlarge Oral Argument Time.” The certificate of conference recites
that the motion to postpone is opposed.

We ORDER the parties opposing the motion to file response(s), if any, on

or before MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2021

.

/s/ LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE
06/10/201 0 14:4 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A +DM S 1001/00 1 

# WISCONSI N 

# AVIATIO N I ',.• • •JO N 

### Ma y 11 , 201 0
Hearin g Docket , Roo m 2014 , AGC-40 0 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D.C
. 2059 1 \ / Attention : Hearin g Docke tCler k Mr
. Jo e Cont e Enforcemen tDivision , A6C-30 0 Offic e o fth e Chie fCounse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D.C
. 2059 1 

# ^010-05 ^ /l^P'OS^^VD j

RE : Reques tfo rHearin g / Wisconsi n Aviation , Inc
. - Cas e #2007SW91005 0 T o Who m I tConcerns : Wisconsi n Aviation , Inc
. hereb yrequest s a hearin g i n accordanc e wit h Subpar tG o fPar t1 3 o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s (1 4 C.F.R
. 13 , Subpar tG) , i n regar d t o Cas e # 2007SW910050
. W e reques ttha tth e hearin g b e hel d a ta locatio n a s clos e t o Watertown , Wisconsi n a s possible
. Sincerely , 

# (J; ( / Ireffer yBau m Presiden t Wisconsi n Aviation , Inc
. 

### 174 1 Rive r Drive Watertown , Wisconsi n 5309 4 

### 920.261,456 7 Certifie d Mal l

Dan e CountyRegiona l Aifpo n 360 6 Corbe n Court- Madison , W i ^wi w

e00-534-53!><J CORPORAT F HEADQUARTER S Wstertow n Monidpa l Airpor i 174 1 RIvc - Drive •Watcrlowii , W I !>;ii)! M

800-657-076 1 Dodg e Coiini yAirpor i N649 1 Stat e Hw

y2 6 •Juneiau , W I S^lOrii- ) 000-219-090 7 WJ 3 C O ; J J J'- J y] TI O M o \-i \
Exhibit 23


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-20169) pertaining to the Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. 1993 Stock Option
Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-29940) pertaining to
the Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan of our report dated July 18,
2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended May 31, 2003.



                                             /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Jackson, Mississippi
August 8, 2003
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,919-01

EX PARTE BARRY DEMINGS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1165072-A IN THE 263 DISTRICT COURT RD

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

cocaine and sentenced to 180 days’ incarceration in the County Jail. TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.44(a). 

On February 20, 2015, the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law that were

based on laboratory results purportedly showing that Applicant possessed no controlled substances. 

The trial court recommended that relief be granted. However, the habeas record contains only an

unsigned letter describing the results of the laboratory testing. 

The trial court shall supplement the record with the laboratory report showing the analysis
2

of the evidence from Applicant’s case. If no such report is available, the trial court shall make

findings of fact addressing the absence of this evidence and assessing the credibility of the letter

included in the habeas record as Exhibit 4. The trial court shall also make any other supplemental

findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of

Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has supplemented the record and

resolved the fact issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental

transcript containing all affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes

from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and

conclusions of law, shall be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any

extensions of time shall be obtained from this Court.

Filed: April 15, 2015

Do not publish
Exhibit 32.2
                           Certification of Controller

     Pursuant to 18 US.C. Section, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     I, Tracy L. Morris,  Controller of Capital Southwest  Corporation,  certify
that, to my knowledge:

     1. The Form 10-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on May
23, 2008 ("accompanied  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 accompanied report fairly presents, in
all material  respects,  the  consolidated  financial  condition  and results of
operations of Capital Southwest Corporation.


Date: May 23, 2008                               /s/ Tracy L. Morris
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Tracy L. Morris, Controller