alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Steven Leon VILLIARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 13506.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 20, 1974.

*864Bruce C. Lubeck of Salt Lake Legal Defender Ass’n, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Earl F. Dorius, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

ELLETT, Justice:

Mr. Villiard was duly convicted by a jury of the crime of rape, and his conviction was affirmed by this court on appeal.1 He then filed an application for writ of habeas corpus and now appeals from a denial of his application for release from prison on a writ of habeas corpus. The particular claim he now makes is that the prosecuting attorney suppressed evidence which was favorable to him and that he never knew of it prior to or at the time of his former appeal.

The evidence about which he now complains was a report by the FBI that the tests made were inconclusive and showed neither guilt nor innocence. The complaint is also made that the sheriff’s report and the doctor’s examination made a number of hours after the crime did not show any tears or bruises in the vaginal area of the victim.

The prosecuting attorney was aware of this evidence but did not tell counsel for Mr. Villiard. However, counsel never requested any information in that regard and in fact made objection to the proof of the matter when the victim herself was testifying. The following questions and answers were given:

> Q And then after that were you examined by a doctor ?

> A Yes, I was.

> Q Who was that doctor ?

> A Doctor Midgley.

> Q When was that ?

> A On that very same day, that night.

> Q And was he able to find anything in his examination?

> A No.

> Mr. Terry: Just a minute. We will object to that.

> The Court: I will sustain that objection.

Counsel for Mr. Villiard thus had his opportunity to learn and did learn that the doctor’s examination of the victim did not reveal any incriminating evidence which would tend to prove a crime or tend to connect Mr. Villiard therewith.

The prosecuting attorney said he did not consider the FBI report of any importance and did not wish to take the time of the court and jury by offering it in evidence since it was negative.

At the hearing on the application of ha-beas corpus the prosecuting attorney stated, and the court found, that he would have shown the results of the report to counsel had a request been made for it.

He further testified that he always made available to defense counsel any report of materiality which he had and that he never held anything back from them.

In this matter there was no withholding of evidence favorable to the defense. The very evidence about which Mr. Villiard *865now complains was given to the jury over the objection of his counsel, and he is in no position to complain that the report was not shown to him.

The judgment is affirmed.

CALLISTER, C. J., and HENRIOD, CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.

1

. State v. Villiard, 27 Utah 2d 204, 494 P.2d 285 (1972).
#### R. L. Baker and Ida Will Baker, Petitioners, v. George W. DeMuro, County Judge, Respondent.

Original Proceeding for Prohibition.

Strauss L. Boyd, for Petitioners.

Petition of Petitioners for writ of prohibition denied at cost of petitioners, without prejudice to right of petitioners to apply to Circuit Judge for appropriate relief.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6673

FRANK LEACH, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versusROBERT WARD, Warden of Evans Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-00-301-7-23) Submitted: August 28, 2001 Decided: September 20, 2001 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Leach, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICEOF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Frank Leach, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Leach v. Ward , No. CA-00-301- 7-23 (D.S.C. Apr. 2, 2001). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Jarnail Singh KULAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-74444. Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 26, 2005.

*231Alan M. Kaufman, Kaufman Law Office, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Dennis J. Dimsey, Sarah E. Harrington, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Jarnail Singh Kular, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

Substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The IJ incorrectly found Kular’s testimony incredible because it was more detailed than his asylum application. *See Lopez-Reyes v. INS,*79 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 1996). The omission of minor details such as the various types of instruments used to beat Kular are not valid grounds for an adverse credibility determination. *See Bandari v. INS,*227 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir.2000). The IJ’s adverse credibility determination also fails because the IJ did not explain the significance of the inconsistencies it identified. *See id.*at 1166. Furthermore, Kular’s testimony does not conflict with his asylum application and supporting documents. *See id.*

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings on the merits. *INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 17-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40215

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROGELIO BAZAN GARZA 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-418-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rogelio Bazan Garza was convicted of one charge oftransporting an illegal

alien within the United States, and the district court sentenced him to serve 37

months in prison and a two-year term of supervised release. Bazan Garza

appeals his sentence. He argues that his sentence is unreasonable because it is

the result of an erroneous balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Specifically, he contends thatthe district courtfailed to give sufficient mitigating

weight to his history of mental illness and improperly relied on this factor to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 6, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40215

2

support its chosen term of imprisonment, which was contrary to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(a). Bazan Garza also challenges this court’s application of a rebuttable

presumption of reasonableness to a sentence that falls within the defendant’s

guidelines range.

Our review of the record shows no clear error in connection with the

district court’s exercise of its broad sentencing discretion. See United States v.

Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 163 (2007).

Bazan Garza’s § 3582 argumentis likewise nonpersuasive, as the record reflects

that the district court gave proper weight to Bazan Garza’s need for treatment.

See United States v. Giddings, 37 F.3d 1091, 1096 & n.17 (5th Cir. 1994); United

States v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d 946, 956 n.13 (5th Cir. 1990). Bazan Garza’s

challenge to the presumption of reasonableness is unavailing. See Rita v. United

States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554

(5th Cir. 2006).

Bazan Garza has failed to show error in connection with his sentence.

Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# dep

west virginia department o f env i ronmental protect i on D ivis i on of Air Q u ality 60 1 5 7 th S T SE C h arl esto n , WV 2 5 304 Earl R ay Tombl i n , Governor Randy C

. H uffman , Cabin et Secretary d ep . wv . gov J anu ary 22 , 2013
Ms. Diana Esher , Director Air Protection Divi sio n U .S. EPA Region 3 1650 Arch Street (3APOO) Philadelphia , PA 19103-2029
R e : West Virg inia Upd ate on I-hour Sulfur Di ox id e (S 0 2 ) Monitorin g D at a and D es ignations
D e ar M s. E s h er: In a May 23 , 2 01 1 letter f ro m C abinet Sec ret ary R andy H uf f m an to EPA R eg ion 3 R eg ional Administrator Shaw n G arvi n , WVDEP identi f ied fi ve co unti es that w ere vio l atin g the 2010 l-hour S0 2 standard , ba se d up o n th e m ost re c ent av ailabl e m o ni torin g d ata at that time (2 008- 2 010 ). The countie s included: Brooke , Hanc oc k , M ar s hall , Monon g alia and Woo d. Subsequ e nt air monitorin g data (2010- 201 2) indicates that the air qu ality ha s si g n i ficantl y improv ed i n three o f tho se counti es: Hancock , M onongalia , and Wo o d , sho w in g that the se c ountie s appear to be full y meetin g th e s tandard. Therefore , We s t Virginia i s no w recomm e nding that E P A de s i g nate the s e counties a s attainmentl unc1as s ifiable for the 2010 I-hour S0 2 standard

. WVDEP has uplo a d e d the perti nent data into E PA ' s A ir Quality System , (AQS) but has not yet completed all the necessary quality control/quality as surance procedures. One complicating factor is the 2010-2012 monitoring d ata from monitor 54-107-1002 , located in Parkersburg , WV (Wood County). This monitor is now showing attainment of the standard , with a 2010-2012 design v alue of 52 ppb. Although 2011 data does not mee t the capture criteria for this monitor , a substitution anal y sis of the data was conducted in accordance wi th 40 C

. F

. R Part 50 , Appendix T

. WVDEP and Ohio EPA worked jointly on this anal y sis and b o th are in support of the re s ults. The monitor remains in attainment following appropriate con s ideration of mi ss in g data

. Due to the recent re tirement o f a ke y staff p ers on , w e may not be able to perform c ertification of th e uploaded AQS v alue s a s quickl y a s w e may have d o n e in the past. We plan to c erti fy the West Virg inia 1- hour S0 2 data a s s oon as pr acticable , but no later th an M arch 29 , 2 013

. We urg e E P A to consider the current upload e d AQ S data in making i t s de s i g n ati o n s under the 2 010 l-hour S 0 2 standard. If y ou or y our s taff hav e an y que s tion s or w ould like additional information , plea s e f ee l f ree to contact me at (304) 926- 0462 or Fred Durham , Deputy Dire ctor , at ( 304 ) 9 2 6-0 4 99 e x t. 1242.

John A

. Benedict , D i re c tor Division of Air Quality cc: Donna Mastro 

### Promoting a healthy environment
.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50135

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN JOSE ESPINOZA-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

 ___________________

No. 01-50216

 ___________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO ALVITER-SEGURA,

 Defendant-Appellant.

 ___________________

No. 01-50329

 ___________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUSTAVO GARCIA-LOPEZ,

 Defendant-Appellant.

 ___________________

No. 01-50377

 ___________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ABEL GERARDO HUERTA-VELASQUEZ,

 Defendant-Appellant.
 No. 01-50135 c/w

No. 01-50216

No. 01-50329

No. 01-50377

-2-

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-00-CR-521-1-FB

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

December 7, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In unrelated cases, Juan Jose Espinoza-Gonzalez, Pedro

Alviter-Segura, Gustavo Garcia-Lopez, and Abel Gerardo HuertaVelasquez appeal from their sentences following guilty pleas to

charges of illegal reentry into the United States subsequent to

deportation. The cases have been consolidated on appeal. All

defendants argue that the district court erred at sentencing by

failing to inquire whether the defendants and counsel had read

their presentence reports ("PSR") in violation of Fed. R. Crim.

P. 32(c)(3)(A). They contend that this error requires remand for

resentencing.

We agree with the defendants that the district court failed

to comply with Rule 32(c)(3)(A). However, because the defendants

did not raise the issue of noncompliance in the district court,

we will correct the error only if it was plain and affected their

substantial rights. See United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, __

F.3d __ (5th Cir. Sept. 26, 2001, No. 01-50213), 2001 WL

1135317, at *1; see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
 No. 01-50135 c/w

No. 01-50216

No. 01-50329

No. 01-50377

-3-

732-34 (articulating the plain error standard of review). The

defendants have failed to show that the district court's error

was prejudicial and have not demonstrated plain error. EsparzaGonzalez, 2001 WL 1135317 at *1.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2018436EN.01005402.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/54

---

Action brought on 25 September 2018 — W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen v EUIPO (Kordes’ Rose Monique)

(Case T-569/18)

(2018/C 436/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen GmbH & Co KG (Klein Offenseth-Sparrieshoop, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Kordes’ Rose Monique — Application for registration No 15 856 743

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 1929/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(m) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(m) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### State v. Shaver

16664, 16668, 16671

12/13/94

Affirmed
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 82 

Calling on schools and State and local educational agencies to recognize 

that dyslexia has significant educational implications that must be addressed. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2015 

Mr. PALAZZO submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Calling on schools and State and local educational agencies 

to recognize that dyslexia has significant educational implications that must be addressed. 

Whereas, defined as an unexpected difficulty in reading in an 

individual who has the intelligence to be a much better 

reader, dyslexia reflects a difficulty in getting to the individual sounds of spoken language which typically impacts 

speaking, reading, spelling, and often, learning a second 

language; 

Whereas dyslexia is highly prevalent, affecting one out of five 

individuals in some form, and is persistent; 

Whereas dyslexia is a paradox, so that often the same individual who has a weakness in decoding or reading fluency 

also has strengths in higher level cognitive functions such 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 82 IH 

as reasoning, critical thinking, concept formation, and 

problem solving; 

Whereas great progress has been made in understanding dyslexia at a scientific level, including its epidemiology, and 

cognitive and neurobiological bases; and 

Whereas diagnosis of dyslexia is critical, and must lead to focused, evidence-based interventions, necessary accommodations, self-awareness, self-empowerment, and school 

and life success: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives calls on 

2 schools and State and local educational agencies to recog3 nize that dyslexia has significant educational implications 

4 that must be addressed. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THIRTEEN AND
TWENTY-SIX WEEKS ENDED DECEMBER 27,1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997<F1>
<CASH>                                         291,735
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  226,396
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,967)
<INVENTORY>                                    680,322
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,221,876
<PP&E>                                         319,487
<DEPRECIATION>                               (121,248)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,435,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          862,087
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           925
<OTHER-SE>                                     442,116
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,435,907
<SALES>                                      2,613,771
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,613,771
<CGS>                                        2,232,820
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,232,820
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               293,255
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 85,684
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,988
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             52,696
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,696
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.55
<FN>
<F1>Restated financial data schedule. Effective as of the beginning of fiscal
2000, the Company adopted a new accounting policy for the recognition of
revenues related to sales of certain extended service plans by the Company, as
described in Note 3 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the
Company's Report on Form 10-Q for the thirteen and twenty-six weeks ended
December 25, 1999. The Company has given retroactive effect to this new
accounting policy and is accordingly restating its financial statements for
the twenty-six weeks ended December 27, 1997.
</FN>


</TABLE>
September 2023

There were 9 surveillance inspections conducted at 9 different sites for a total of 45

fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities. The 

water temperatures remained warm. Routine harvest continued. All sites with fish in 

the water remained Category 1 and were scheduled for monthly sampling.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

October 2022 66 0 25278

November 2022 55 0 25333

December 2022 69 0 25402

January 2023 100 0 25502

February 2023 74 0 25576

March 2023 35 0 25611

April 2023 59 0 25670

May 2023 60 0 25730

June 2023 55 1 25785

July 2023 60 0 25845

August 2023 50 0 25895

September 2023 45 0 25940
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                          OCT-11-1997
<CASH>                                          0
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                            69944000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                             217923000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        321173000
<PP&E>                                  190117000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          840426000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   196729000
<BONDS>                                 345978000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                   813000
<OTHER-SE>                              196630000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            840426000
<SALES>                                 816633000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        816633000
<CGS>                                   498500000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           498500000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       15966000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         115714000
<INCOME-TAX>                             45039000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      70845000
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                             70845000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .85
        

</TABLE>
22049

#### State v. Napierala

Affirmed