alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

PD-1374-14

WESLEY ALLEN DOTSON, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

KARNES COUNTY

Per curiam. Richardson, J., not participating.

O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant of aggravated assault of a public servant, and sentenced

him to fifty years’ confinement and assessed a $10,000 fine. On appeal, appellant claimed

that the trial court erred by allowing the State to impeach a defense witness with prior

felony convictions that were more than ten years old.

The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s actions by applying the common law

tacking doctrine to the remote convictions, and assessing their admissibility under Rule of

Evidence 609(a)’s “outweigh” standard rather than Rule of Evidence 609(b)’s
WESLEY ALLEN DOTSON – 2

“substantially outweigh” standard. Dotson v. State, No. 04-13-00858-CR, slip op. at 3-4

(Tex. App.–San Antonio Sept. 10, 2015)(not designated for publication). Applying Rule

609(a), the court of appeals upheld the admission of the prior remote convictions. Id. at 6.

Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review of this decision. We recently

addressed this issue in Meadows v. State, PD-0175-14, slip op. at 4 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb.

25, 2015), in which we held that the unambiguous plain language of Rule of Evidence

609 supplants the common-law tacking doctrine. Under Rule 609(b), evidence of a prior

conviction is inadmissible to impeach a witness “if more than ten years has elapsed since

the later of the date of conviction or release of the witness from confinement imposed for

that conviction ‘unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative

value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially

outweighs its prejudicial effect.’” Id. at 6.

The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in

Meadows. Accordingly, we grant ground (1) of appellant’s petition for discretionary

review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of

Appeals in light of our opinion in Meadows.

1

DELIVERED April 15, 2015

DO NOT PUBLISH

 Ground (2) of appellant’s petition for discretionary review is refused without prejudice.

1
OMB.1845.0101.v.2 Table 30 Day Comment Period **Respondent Type Requirement** **# of Respondents # of Responses** **Hours/Response Total Hours**  **Section A : Burden by A**  **ffected Entity**

Individuals or Households Borrowers 34 CFR 601.10 1,900,608 1,900,608 0.17 323,103 Borrowers 34 CFR 601.11 3,666,960 3,666,960 0.25 916,740 Borrowers 34 CFR 601.40 3,666,960 3,666,960 0.08 293,357 Sub-total 9,234,528 9,234,528 1,533,200

Private Sector Business or other for-profits Institutions - Proprietary-preferred lender lists34 CFR 601.10 88 88 439 Institutions - Proprietary -adopt TILA form 34 CFR 601.11 88 263 Institutions - Proprietary -TILA disclosures 34 CFR 601.11 183,348 60,505 Institutions-Proprietary - Annual Report 34 CFR 601.20 88 22 Institutions - Proprietary-Code of Conduct 34 CFR 601.21 88 132 Lender Responsibility-TILA disclosures 34 CFR 601.40 884 3,666,960 0.17 623,383 Lender Responsibility- reasonable expense34 CFR 601.40 884 0.33 292 Sub-total 972 3,851,544 685,036

Not-for profits Institutions - Private 34 CFR 601.10 984 984 4,920 Institutions - Private-adopt TILA form 34 CFR 601.11 984 2,952 Institutions - Private- TILA disclosures 34 CFR 601.11 2,053,498 677,654 Institutions - Private-Annual Report 34 CFR 601.20 984 246 Institutions - Private-Code of Conduct 34 CFR 601.21 984 1,476 Sub-total 984 2,057,434 687,248

State, Local, or Tribal Governments Institutions - Public 34 CFR 601.10 685 685 3,426 Institutions - Public-adopt TILA form 34 CFR 601.11 685 2,056 Institutions - Public-adopt TILA disclosures 34 CFR 601.11 1,430,114 471,938 Institutions - Public-Annual Report 34 CFR 601.20 685 171 Institutions - Public-Code of Conduct 34 CFR 601.21 685 1,028 Sub-total 685 1,432,854 478,619

**Total 9,237,169**  **16,576,360 3,384,103** **CURRENT INVENTORY**

Current # of Respondents 13,674,883 Current # of Responses 13,674,883 Current Inventory of Hours 3,197,761

**REVISED # OF RESPONDENTS** 9,237,169 REVISED # OF RESPONSES 16,576,360 **REVISED # OF BURDEN HOURS** 3,384,103

**TOTA L # RESPONDENTS**  9,237,169 **TOTA L # RESPONSES**  16,576,360 **TOTA L # HOURS**  3,384,103

Difference -4,437,714 2,901,477 186,342
# Lamb History

Page &P of &N

&8Information Provided By:U.S. Department of AgricultureAgricultural Marketing ServiceLivestock, Poultry and Seed ProgramQuality Assessment Division	

# Graded Lamb

&8Information Provided By:U.S. Department of AgricultureMarketing and Regulatory ProgramsAgricultural Marketing ServiceLivestock, Poultry and Seed ProgramGrading and Verification Division	

USDA Graded Lamb - 2001 to 2021(Thousand  Pounds)

Calendar Year

# Lamb Slaughter

&8Information Provided By:U.S. Department of AgricultureMarketing and Regulatory ProgramsAgricultural Marketing ServiceLivestock, Poultry and Seed ProgramGrading and Verification Division	

Federal Lamb Slaughter - 2001 to 2021(Percentage of Total Graded)

Calendar Year

# Prime

&8Information Provided By:U.S. Department of AgricultureMarketing and Regulatory ProgramsAgricultural Marketing ServiceLivestock, Poultry and Seed ProgramGrading and Verification Division	

USDA Prime Lamb - 2001 to 2021(Percentage of Total Graded)

Calendar Year

# Choice

&8Information Provided By:U.S. Department of AgricultureMarketing and Regulatory ProgramsAgricultural Marketing ServiceLivestock, Poultry and Seed ProgramGrading and Verification Division	

USDA Choice Lamb - 2001 to 2021(Percentage of Total Graded)

Calendar Year

# Good

&8Information Provided By:U.S Department of AgricultureMarketing and Regulatory ProgramsAgricultural Marketing ServiceLivestock, Poultry and Seed ProgramGrading and Verification Division	

USDA Good Lamb - 2001 to 2021(Percentage of Total Graded)

The industry has not requested USDA Good grade evaluation of Lamb carcasses since 1997

Calendar Year

# YG 1

Information Provided By:U.S Department of AgricultureMarketing and Regulatory ProgramsAgricultural Marketing ServiceLivestock, Poultry and Seed ProgramGrading and Verification Division	

USDA Yield Grade 1 Lamb - 2001 to 2021(Percentage of Total Graded)

Calendar Year

# YG 2

Information Provided By:U.S Department of AgricultureMarketing and Regulatory ProgramsAgricultural Marketing ServiceLivestock, Poultry and Seed ProgramGrading and Verification Division	

USDA Yield Grade 2 Lamb - 2001 to 2021(Percentage of Total Graded)

Calendar Year

# YG 3

Information Provided By:U.S Department of AgricultureMarketing and Regulatory ProgramsAgricultural Marketing ServiceLivestock, Poultry and Seed ProgramGrading and Verification Division	

USDA Yield Grade 3 Lamb - 1996 to 2016(Percentage of Total Graded)

Calendar Year

# YG 4

Information Provided By:U.S Department of AgricultureMarketing and Regulatory ProgramsAgricultural Marketing ServiceLivestock, Poultry and Seed ProgramGrading and Verification Division	

USDA Yield Grade 4 Lamb - 2001 to 2021(Percentage of Total Graded)

Calendar Year

# YG 5

Information Provided By:U.S Department of AgricultureMarketing and Regulatory ProgramsAgricultural Marketing ServiceLivestock, Poultry and Seed ProgramGrading and Verification Division	

USDA Yield Grade 5 Lamb - 2001 to 2021(Percentage of Total Graded)

Calendar Year
November 2010 and February 2011 TTD benefits, Constitution State 

Service Company did not pay benefits from October 5 through November 

1. The appeals officer further noted that Maggio had to administratively 

challenge the compliance letter in order to obtain the October 5 through 

November 1 benefits, as well as benefits due for other months that had not 

been paid. Although the appeals officer concluded that the April 26 order 

was ambiguous as to when the TTD benefits terminated, she confirmed 

that it was clear that they were to start on October 5. Nevertheless, the 

appeals officer found that, due to the ambiguity, the DIR should not have 

assessed benefit penalties. 

NRS 616D.120(3) requires the DIR administrator to impose 

benefit penalties upon making certain findings, including that a thirdparty administrator refused or unreasonably delayed payment more than 

30 days after an appeals officer issues a decision determining payment is 

due, and also including that the third-party administrator made it 

necessary for a claimant to initiate proceedings under the NRS Chapters 

616A-D for compensation found due by an appeals officer. See NRS 

616D.120(1)(c) and (e). Here, regardless of any confusion over when the 

TTD benefits were to terminate, Constitution State Service Company 

failed to issue the benefits that were ordered to begin on October 5 until 

several months after the April 26 decision, and only after Maggio pursued 

subsequent administrative proceedings. As a result, the appeals officer's 

conclusion that the ambiguity in the DIR determination excused the delay 

in payment for October 5 through November 1 was clearly erroneous. See 

Law Offices of Barry Levinson v. Milko, 124 Nev. 355, 362, 184 P.3d 378, 

383 (2008) (explaining that this court applies the same standard in 

reviewing an agency decision as the district court, and thus looks for clear 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A et> 
J. 

error or an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion); see also NRS 

233B.135 (providing the standards for judicial review of an agency 

decision). The district court should have granted Maggio's petition for 

judicial review and reinstated the DIR benefit penalties, and thus, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED. 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge 

Kemp & Kemp 

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 3 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A egc■
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

YASHEAM WASHINGTON,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 40 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
#### Morris G. REESE, Appellant, v. Louis J. GEIERMANN and Regal, Inc., Appellees.

No. 3332.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Feb. 10, 1978.

*446Lawrence J. Kulik, Anchorage, for appellant.

Chancy Croft, Croft, Thurlow, Loutrel & Duggan, Anchorage, for appellees.

OPINION

Before BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice, and RABINO WITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and ' MATTHEWS, Justices.

MATTHEWS, Justice.

The principal question in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in valuing real property which appellant had wrongfully conveyed. The court’s finding of value was in accordance with a written estimate of a real estate appraiser which was introduced into evidence without objection.1 The report was hearsay, but since it was not objected to the court did not err in admitting or relying on it. “Hearsay testimony which is not objected to is fully competent.” *City of Anchorage*v. *Nesbett,*530 P.2d 1324, 1336 (Alaska 1975).

Appellant also contends that the appraiser’s report was predicated on an assumption that any sale of the property would be on an installment basis rather than for cash and that it was therefore plain error for the court to rely on the report. We have held that “we shall consider plain errors, even though not objected to below, which are so substantial as to result in injustice.” *Merrill v. Faltin,*430 P.2d 913, 917 (Alaska 1967). We find no plain error. The report does not specify whether the estimate of value assumed a cash or installment sale, and no evidence was presented at trial that there would be any difference in value under the two assumptions for the type of real estate involved.

Appellant also contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a continuance and motion to amend the judgment. Those orders may not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of *447discretion by the trial court.2 We find no abuse of discretion with regard to the court’s denial of either motion.

AFFIRMED.

1

. No evidence that the property had a value lower than that contained in the appraiser’s report was presented at trial. Appellee Louis J. Geiermann testified to a somewhat higher value, also without objection.

2

. Concerning a motion to amend a judgment under Civil Rule 59(f), “the same appellate review for legal error is available, on appeal from the judgment, as is available relative to motions for a new trial.” 6A Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.15[4], at 59-294 (2d Ed. 1974). The standard of review of new trial motions is that we will reverse only in cases of abuse of discretion. *Ahlstrom v. Cummings,*388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964). The same standard applies to motions for a continuance. *Gregoire v. National Bank of Alaska,*413 P.2d 27, 33 (Alaska 1966).
Exhibit 32.2 Certificate:



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

OF SHIWANA, INC.



I, the undersigned, being the one of the co-chief executive officers, respectively, of Shiwana, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his information, knowledge
and belief, that (1) the Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) 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: September 12, 2005



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ Barry Bertiger        
|Barry Bertiger            
|Title:                    
|Co-Chief Executive Officer
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Agricultural 

Marketing

Service

Fruit and

Vegetable

Division

Fresh

Products

Branch

United States Standards

for Grades of

Green Tomatoes for

Processing

Effective April 15, 1950

(Reprinted - January 1997)
 Compliance with the provisions of these standards shall not excuse failure to comply with the provisions of the 1

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or with applicable State laws and regulations.

1

United States Standards for Grades of Green Tomatoes for Processing 1

Grades

51.1930 U.S. No. 1.

51.1931 U.S. No. 2.

Culls

51.1932 Culls.

Size

51.1933 Minimum size.

Definitions

51.1934 Green in color.

51.1935 Damage.

51.1936 Serious damage.

Grades

§51.1930 U.S. No. 1.

U.S. No. 1 shall consist of tomatoes which are green in color, fairly firm, free from decay, stems

and worms, and are free from damage caused by growth cracks, worm holes, scars, catfaces,

sunburn, sunscald, freezing, disease, or mechanical or other means. (See §51.1933.)

§51.1931 U.S. No. 2.

U.S. No. 2 shall consist of tomatoes which do not meet the requirements of the foregoing grade,

but are green in color, and are free from worms, and from damage caused by worm holes, and

which are free from serious damage by any cause. (See §51.1933.) 

Culls

§51.1932 Culls.

Culls are tomatoes which fail to meet the requirements of either of the foregoing grades.

Size

§51.1933 Minimum size.

The minimum size may be fixed by agreement between buyer and seller. Tomatoes below the

specified minimum size shall be classed as culls.

Definitions

§51.1934 Green in color.

"Green in color" means that the surface of the tomato shows no pink or red color.

§51.1935 Damage.

"Damage" means any injury which cannot be removed in the ordinary process of trimming without

a loss of more than 10 percent, by weight, of the tomato in excess of that which would occur if

the tomato were perfect. The following shall be considered damage:

(a) Worm holes, when the injury has penetrated beneath the outer wall of the tomato to the extent
2

that the injury has damaged the tomato for processing.

§51.1936 Serious damage.

"Serious damage" means any injury which cannot be removed in the ordinary process of trimming

without a loss of more than 20 percent, by weight, of the tomato in excess of that which would

occur if the tomato were perfect.
^/wH^ff

D<^o~r_mf^Ab^Lk&sio±

._C tiLWiLp7- -k) l^70U) U3hU T fatV^nV- h&JL.r<J nnfhina

•from you rtfenyi-A rry CcxftL 7" ffrt" ^^ U)fo^° QrrW JM

~^}£JjbcdL_my_c^^

aXlT. have, it. have. _T hajsevH- heourd nothing-e.i[Cf.jy?

you or r//?d coarf I-f /ml? />eff7 a, year ctng/ ^ coiy7/e o£

•flunk yTM.- &0A (3leS£

Wyfte.Ji£^OrL(M)^p££rl/mart^

-" ; •

• •• - -

. "• '

RECEIVED IN

COURTOFCRIMINAL APPEALS

_ A

APR 17 2015

w

AbelAcostaCfefk
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Gregory Lucas, Appellant. Brooklyn Academy of Music, Inc., Respondent. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 6, 1990, which, *inter alia,*ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The evidence in the record establishes that claimant was discharged for failing to document his absences, for leaving his post unattended, for failing to punch his time card as he was required to do, and for destroying the time card which was the employer’s property. Claimant did not deny any of these facts. Under these circumstances, there was substantial evidence to support the decision disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct *923
      *(see, Matter of Valentin [American Museum of Natural History —Roberts],*103 AD2d 919). Additionally, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board properly ruled that the overpayments received by claimant were recoverable *(see, Matter of Barber [Roberts],*121 AD2d 767, 769). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### Muhieddine R. Ghandour, Appellant, v Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., Respondent.

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered July 9,1990, granting defendant’s dismissal motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2), (5); 3016 (b) and 214 (3) only to the extent of dismissing the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law, that part of defendant’s motion denied and the matter is remanded to the nisi prius court for consideration of the other branches of defendant’s motion, with costs.

In this action alleging common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion of assets, plaintiff seeks to recover $20 million he lost in 1983 and 1984 through a commodities trading account which, he alleges, he was fraudulently induced to open by a certain Jean Hindi, who was held out to be defendant’s agent. Plaintiff also seeks $25 million in punitive damages. In dismissing the amended complaint, the IAS court found that plaintiff’s claims are preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act (7 USC § 1*et seq.)*and, relying on 7 USC § 25 (c), held that the U.S. District Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims such as plaintiff’s. That section specifically states, however, that it applies only to private rights of action brought under that section.

We agree with the overwhelming body of case law which holds that, while establishing a wide-ranging scheme for the regulation of commodities trading, nothing in the Act preempts or abolishes traditional common law claims for damages. *(See, e.g., Kerr v First Commodity Corp.,*735 F2d 281, *318288; *Kotz v Bache Halsey Stuart,*685 F2d 1204; *Khalid Bin Talal Bin Abdul Azaiz Al Seoud v Hutton & Co.,*720 F Supp 671, 679-682; *Patry v Rosenthal & Co.,*534 F Supp 545.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

ALLEN L. FEINGOLD, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 1 EM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED 

AS UNTIMELY.
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO §906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund XI, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby 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 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: May 16, 2011/s/ Paritosh K. ChoksiParitosh K. Choksi Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC (Managing Member)
 A signed original 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.
Dear Stakeholder,

The Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO) verifies variety names (denominations) in a number of ways 

before a Plant Variety Protection (PVP) certificate is issued. The best way to ensure your variety name is 

not already in use internationally is to check The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties 

of Plants (UPOV) database. Registration for this database is free.

In order to obtain PVP, a variety must be new, distinct, uniform, and stable and have a permanent 

variety name. In the US, variety names for agricultural (corn, soybean, etc.) and vegetable crops are 

established from the name that the variety is first sold under, in accordance with the Federal Seed Act 

(FSA). That variety name is permanent once a sale has occurred, and it cannot be changed or re-used.

The US does not have a variety name registration system. Many other countries have a formal 

registration system which requires breeders to register new varieties. The USDA’s Seed Regulatory and 

Testing Division (SRTD) performs a voluntary variety name clearance, where a seed developer submits a 

proposed variety name and SRTD checks to see if a conflict exists within the US market. SRTD maintains 

a list of cleared variety names that breeders can check to see if a name conflict exists in the US only. As 

part of the PVP application process for sexually propagated varieties, we ask that applicants receive a 

SRTD name clearance confirmation before we issue a PVP certificate.

The situation is different for asexually and tuber propagated varieties because they don’t fall under the 

FSA. For these crops, the PVPO recommends that applicants check their variety name with the UPOV 

Plant Variety Database (PLUTO). To be safe, it is recommended that all applicants, including those of 

sexually and tuber propagated varieties, check the UPOV PLUTO database for variety name conflicts.

As a final check, before issuing a PVP certificate for any crop, the PVPO searches the UPOV PLUTO 

database to determine if that variety name has been used before. If variety name conflicts are found, 

the PVPO informs the applicant to work out a solution.

If you have questions, please contact our office using the numbers and links below.

Thank you for your interest in the PVPO,

USDA, AMS, S&T Program, Plant Variety Protection Office

1400 Independence Ave, SW - Room 4512, Mail Stop 0274
Washington, DC 20250

Phone: (202) 260-8983

PVPO E-mail

PVPO Website