alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60476

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM HEATH MARS,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:01-CR-13-1-D

-------------------- March 7, 2003

Before JONES, STEWART, AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

William Heath Mars is appealing his cond itional guilty plea

conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to

distribute and for possession of a firearm during and in relation

to that drug-trafficking offense.

The motion of the United States to supplement the record on

appeal with the transcript of the suppression hearing is GRANTED.No. 02-60476

-2-

Mars argues that the district court erred in denying his

motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence because the

warrant was a general warrant which left the agents with discretion

with respect to the items to be seized.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

Government, the district court did not err in denying the motion to

suppress. T he affidavit referred to the list of specific items to

be seized and incorporated the detailed underlying factual

statement

. Thus, it was not a “bare bones” affidavit. S ee United

States v. Cherna , 184 F.3d 403, 407-09 (5th Cir. 1999).

The searc h warrant referred to the affidavit and also

incorporated the underlying statement of facts which set out in

detail the reasons for the search for particular items. The

incorporation of the detailed statement satisfied the particularity

requirement. S ee United States v. Shugart

, 117 F.3d 838, 845 (5th

Cir. 1997).

The evidence also supports the finding that Agent Palmer acted

in good faith and, thus, even assuming that the search warrant did

not satisfy the particularity requirement, the good faith exception

applies to uphold the validity of the search. Shurgart , 117 F.3d

at 844-46. Further, based on the results of the extensive

investigation made prior to the issuance of the war rant, the

district court did not err in determining that there was probable

cause for the search. See United States v. Brown , 941 F.2d 1300,

1302 (5th Cir. 1991).No. 02-60476

-3-

Mars also argues that the district court did not properly

consider his request for a downward departure based on U.S.S.G.

§ 5H1.4. Mars argues that the district court misunderstood its

ability to depart downward because it justified denying the motion

based on sustaining Mars’ objection regarding the scope of his

relevant conduct.

Because the district court did not base its decision on an

erroneous belief that it lacked authority to depart, the ruling on

the motion to depart is not subject to review. U nited States v.

Yanez-Huerta , 207 F.3d 746, 748 (5th Cir. 2000).

Mars’ conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      39,330,000
<SECURITIES>                                28,877,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,273,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            70,596,000
<PP&E>                                       5,304,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,613,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              78,197,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       29,179,000
<BONDS>                                      1,663,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,500,000
<COMMON>                                        42,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,314,000<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                78,197,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,488,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               62,237,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             268,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (50,485,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (50,485,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                            (19,477,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (69,962,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.69)
<FN>
<F1>Additional paid-in capital - $268,278,000
Accumulated deficit - $(231,996,000)
FAS 115 Securities Adjustment - $32,000
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 99

          Statement Regarding Western State University College of Law


In connection with the Company's acquisition of Argosy Education Group, Inc.
("Argosy") in 2001, the Company sought various approvals from the U.S.
Department of Education, state regulatory agencies, and accrediting bodies,
including the American Bar Association (the "ABA"), which provisionally
accredits Western State University College of Law ("Western State"), owned by
Argosy.  At the time the agreements relating to that acquisition were executed
in July 2001, it appeared that all such approvals would be obtained prior to
December 31, 2001.  However, in November 2001, the ABA informed Argosy that
Argosy's application for approval of the change of ownership of Western State
would not be acted upon until some time in 2002.  For a variety of business
reasons, the Company and Argosy determined to proceed with the closing of the
acquisition in late December. At its meeting on February 2-3, 2002, the ABA's
Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (the
"Council") approved the change of ownership of Western State. By letter dated
February 13, 2002, the ABA informed EDMC, Argosy and Western State that the
Council had issued a censure and was requiring that the censure be stated in
published documents in the following language:

     "In February 2002, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and
     Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association issued a public
     censure of Western State University College of Law, Argosy Education Group,
     and Education Management Corporation, for their intentional violation of
     the requirements of Standard 105 of the Standards for Approval of Law
     Schools and Rules 18 and 19 of the Rules of Procedures for Approval of Law
     Schools, in that the merger between Argosy, which owned Western State
     University College of Law, and Education Management Corporation constituted
     a major change in the organizational structure of Western State University
     College of Law, and was completed without the prior acquiescence of the
     Council."

The ABA has indicated to EDMC that this censure is independent from, and will
not be relevant to, any action that the ABA's Accreditation Committee or the
Council will take in the future regarding the accreditation of Western State.
The Company does not believe that the censure will adversely impact Western
State, Argosy, or the Company.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

To: Public Information (MS 5030)

Plans Section, Office of Field 

Operations (MS 5231)

Public Information copy of Exploration Plan

Control # - N-09536

Type - Initial Exploration Plan

Lease(s) - OCS-G33161 Block - 524 Mississippi Canyon Area

Operator - Newfield Exploration Company

Subsea Wells Location A, B and C

DP SEMISUBMERSIBLE

Attached is a copy of the subject plan for public comments on issues that 

should be addressed in an Environmental Assessment.

It has been deemed submitted as of this date and is under review for approval.

Chiquita Hill

Plan Coordinator

Description -

Rig Type -

Subject:

From:

May 4, 2011
25014

#### State v. Takeda

Affirmed
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**141 KA 14-00411** 
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROGELIO MUESES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (DEBORAH K. JESSEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DANIEL J. PUNCH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered January 23, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and unlawful possession of marihuana.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and unlawful possession of marihuana (§ 221.05). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence seized from defendant and his vehicle. The evidence at the suppression hearing established that the police officers had an objective, credible reason to approach defendant’s parked vehicle, which was located in a park known for drugs, prostitution and underage drinking ( see People v Ocasio , 85 NY2d 982, 984; People v Cintron , 125 AD3d 1333, 1334, lv denied 25 NY3d 1071). One of the officers testified that he noticed a pile of tobacco next to the driver’s door, which in the officer’s experience was indicative of marihuana use, and both officers testified that they detected the aroma of marihuana when they got close to the vehicle. The officers were justified in opening the driver’s door based upon their observations outside the vehicle and their inability to see into the vehicle’s interior ( see People v David
L. , 56 NY2d 698, 700, revg on dissent 81 AD2d 893, 895-896, cert denied 459 US 866; People v Funderbunk , 122 AD3d 515, 516, lv denied 25 NY3d 1201). The question to defendant whether he had “more weed” was supported by a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity ( see People v Phillips , 46 AD3d 1021, 1023, lv denied 10 NY3d 815). He responded to that question by producing a bag of marihuana and, “[a]lthough defendant was not placed under arrest at**-2- 141 KA 14-00411** 

the time of the search, we nevertheless conclude that the officer[s] had probable cause to search the vehicle” ( People v Harrington , 30 AD3d 1084, 1085, lv denied 7 NY3d 848; see People v Chestnut , 43 AD2d 260, 261-262, affd 36 NY2d 971).

Entered: March 25, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

SCOTT RASSNER , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA and DELRAY MEDICAL CENTER, INC. , Appellee s

.

No. 4D 20

- 944

[ October 22, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Charles E. Burton , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2020

- MH

000724

- XXXX

- SB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine Austin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for ap pellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Shane Weaver, Esq., Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee State of Florida.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

D AMOORGIAN , C IKLIN , JJ., and F RINK , K EATHAN , Associate Judge, concu r.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
21170

#### State v. Ah Sing

Affirmed
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Lester F. Avnet, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County,

February 22, 1971.

*Baer & McGoldrick*for petitioners. *Louis*J. *Lefkovoitz, Attorney-General (Palmer B. Wald*of counsel), for ultimate charitable beneficiaries. *Barrett, Knapp, Smith & Schapiro*for Urban League of Greater New York. *Sidney Schütz*for Yeshiva University.

John D. Bennett, S.

A question has been raised whether the notices of election filed on behalf of Jonathan Michael Avnet, Rosalind Avnet Lazarus and Carole Avnet Roeherolle to contest the charitable dispositions pursuant to EPTL 5-3.3 have been properly served and filed as required by the said statute and the order of this court dated October 29, 1970.

The time to serve and file the notices of election was extended by the afore-mentioned order ‘1 to and including, the 13th day of February, 1971.” It appears that the notices were dated, duly executed and acknowledged respectively on the 5th, 9th and 9th days of February, 1971. By affidavit of service sworn to February 11, 1971 it appears that copies of the same were duly served upon the two executors by placing copies addressed to them in the mail. So much for the service.

This court was closed over the holiday weekend from February 11 to February 15, 1971, both inclusive. The attorneys for the contestants mailed the afore-mentioned notices and affidavit of service to this court for filing by depositing the same in the post office on February 11, 1971. This appears from the postmarked envelope. However, due to the holidays and weekend they were *808not received by this court until February 16, 1971. The notices and affidavit were stamped ‘ ‘ filed ’ ’ on that date.

It is also noted that two of the acknowledgments were taken in the State of New York and one in the State" of Massachusetts, but no authentication certificate was attached to the latter one executed by Rosalind Avnet Lazarus. It is therefore not in proper form for recording in this jurisdiction. The question is raised first of all that the notices were not timely filed, and, secondly, that they should be recorded in order to comply with the statute.

The statute (EPTL 5-3.3, subd. [a], par. [5]) prescribes only that written notice of such election is to be served upon any personal representative *“ in the manner prescribed by this article for the service of notice of election by a surviving*spouse.” (italics supplied.) The only requirement is .that *“*service ” be made in the manner prescribed by EPTL 5-1.1, but this does not extend the requirements to recording (or even to filing, for that matter). The court holds that these notices were duly and properly served, by virtue of section 20 of the General Construction Law, inasmuch as the court was closed from the 11th to the 15th of February, 1971. The court also holds that there is no requirement for recording, and the notices of election are accordingly proper and effective within the purview of EPTL 5-3.3, and they comply with the order of this court dated October 29, 1970.
EXHIBIT 10.45


                                       74
<PAGE>

Our Credit No.                                Date
603824/51810                                  12/28/98

Beneficiary                                   Applicant
Montgomery County Industrial                  Surgical Laser Technologies, Inc.
Development Corporation                       200 Cresson Blvd.
420 West Germantown Pike                      Oaks, PA  19456
Eagleville, PA 19403


Dear Beneficiary:

We hereby amend our irrevocable summary letter of credit as follows:

      1) The expiration date is extended to:       06/30/99

      2) The amount available is decreased by:     USD126,426.00
         The new available balance is:             USD389,753.00

Please note that any and all correspondence related to this letter of credit
should now be sent to First Union National Bank, P.O. Box 13866, 1345 Chestnut
Street, 9th Floor, Attention Letter of Credit Department, Mail Code: PA4926,
Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Except so far as otherwise expressly stated herein this amendment and the
original letter of credit are now subject to the "Uniform Customs and Practice
for Documentary Credits: (1998 revision), International Chamber of Commerce,
Publication No. 500."

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

All inquiries regarding this credit should be directed to us at our phone
numbers: (215) 973-5981; (215) 973-8157; (215) 973-1944.

/s/ Diane Ruch
-------------------------------
Authorized Signature



                                       75
936 P.2d 192

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

18788

#### Hawaii Laborers' Trust Funds v. WCC Associates

March 11, 1997

Order No. 99-19

Vacated
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

444 444 444 444 444 NO. 03-04-00701- CV 444 444 444 444 444 Te xa s D e par tm e ntof Public Safet y, App e lla nt

v. Randall Dace y, Appellee

444444444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444444444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 44 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COU NTY, 207TH J UDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. C2004- 0332 B, HONO RABLE J ACK H . ROBISON, J UDGE PRESIDING 444444444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444444444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 44 M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Texas D epar

tment of Transpor

tation filed a

mot ion to d ism iss thi s a

pp e a l. Acc ording ly , we g rant the motion to dismis s this appeal. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) (1).

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: January

18, 2005
# C_2019423EN.01004501.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 – ZM and Others v Council

(Case T-632/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Members of the temporary staff - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Refusal to reimburse education costs - Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

(2019/C 423/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZM, ZN and ZO (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Council (represented by: R. Meyer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Council’s decisions not to reimburse the applicants, in respect of the school year 2017/2018, for the education costs notified by means of an individual decision or via Sysper/Ariane, the internal IT system.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ZM, ZN and ZO to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ZM, ZN and ZO to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.

---
April 21, 1998

19815

#### State v. Robinson

Vacated
May, 28, 1999

21887

#### State v. Campos

Affirmed
La muerte repentina de los robles es una enfermedad 

del bosque causada por el hongo de agua Phytophthora 

ramorum. Se considera particularmente peligrosa porque 

afecta a una gran variedad de plantas y no se conoce 

ninguna cura.

MUERTE 

REPENTINA DE 

LOS ROBLES

ÁRBOL MUERE DEBIDO A LA

MUERTE REPENTINA DE LOS ROBLES

FÍJESE EN LO 

SIGUIENTE EN LOS ÁRBOLES

• Líquido negro o rojizo que 

sale de los cancros en la 

corteza

FÍJESE EN LO 

SIGUIENTE EN 

LAS PLANTAS 

ORNAMENTALES

• Manchas en las hojas

• Muerte regresiva de las 

ramillas

• Caída excesiva de las hojas

Líquido negro o rojizo

Manchas en las hojas 

Muerte regresiva de las ramillas
Para obtener más información, visite: 

Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos

Servicio de Inspección Sanitaria de Animales y Plantas

El Departamento de Agricultura de EEUU es un proveedor y empleador que ofrece igualdad de 

oportunidades. Material del programa núm. 2125-SOD-S Publicado en septiembre de 2012

PLAGASHAMBRIENTAS.COM

ELDAÑO QUE CAUSA

El P. ramorum por naturaleza crece con fuerza en los 

climas frescos y húmedos, y puede propagarse mediante 

la lluvia impulsada por el viento, el agua de riego 

contaminada y las plantas infectadas. También pueden 

occurrir infecciones signi cativas en los viveros de 

plantas que producen plantas huéspedes vulnerables 

bajo condiciones de clima húmedo y relativamente 

fresco. El germen patógeno también puede moverse en 

la tierra para tiestos que se infecta en los viveros con 

plantas enfermas. Desde el 1995, muchos tanoaks y 

robles vivos de la costa han muerto debido a esta 

enfermedad en California. La epidemia es mayormente 

causada por la infección del laurel de California; el hongo 

de agua crece con fuerza en las hojas de estos árboles 

sin matarlos y se propaga a otras plantas huéspedes 

bajo su follaje.

LO QUE USTED PUEDE HACER

• La detección temprana mediante inpecciones 

realizadas con regularidad en los viveros y el medio 

silvestre es esencial. 

• No transporte, envíe por correo o importe esquejes 

o plantas a su estado o a cualquier otro a menos que 

sean autorizadas por los inspectores agrícolas con 

anterioridad.

• No remueva esquejes o plantas de su propiedad si se 

encuentran en un área bajo cuarentena.

• Desinfecte las herramientas y los zapatos que 

puedan haber entrado en contacto con plantas 

contaminadas. 

• Permita que los trabajadores agrícolas autorizados 

entren a su propiedad para inspeccionar si existe la 

enfermedad. 

• Reporte cada vez que vea una planta con esta 

enfermedad en PlagasHambrientas.com.
Waiver Request Support Document

79

Attachment 4

2013 Amendments to HD OBD and OBD II Enforcement Regulations189

Amendments that Establish New or More Stringent Requirements

A. Section (d): Remedial Action 

1. Section (d)(3)(A)(iii)/ [Section 1968.5(c)(3)(A)(iii)]: Ordered Remedial 

Action-Mandatory Recall- Misfire Monitor

2. Section (d)(3)(A)(vi) )/ [Section 1968.5(c)(3)(A)(vi)]: Ordered Remedial 

Action-Mandatory Recall- PM Filter Monitor

Amendments that Relax or Clarify Existing Requirements 

A. Section (a): General: Definitions

1. Section (a)(3)/ /[Section 1968.5(a)(3)] “Nonconforming OBD System”

B. Section (b): Testing Procedures for ARB-Conducted Testing

1. Section (b)(3)(D)(ii)(b)/ [Section 1968.5(b)(3)(D)(ii)b.]: Engines to be 

included in a Test Sample Group.

2. Section (b)(6)(B) )/[Section 1968.5(b)(6)(A),(b)(6)(B), (c)(3)(A)(i), 

(c)(3)(A)(ii)]: Finding of Nonconformance after Enforcement 

Testing/Ordered Remedial Action-Mandatory Recall

C. Section (d): Remedial Action

1. Section (d)(3)(A)(i): Ordered Remedial Action-Mandatory Recall- Major 

Monitors

189 Amendments to provisions of the OBD II regulation are indicated by providing the 

corresponding provision in section 1968.2 in brackets [ ].