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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered May 23, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s conviction stems from the sale of crack-cocaine to a police informant on three separate occasions. The conversations between the defendant and the informant were tape recorded. At trial, defense counsel’s requests that the court redact certain portions of the recordings in which the defendant referred to uncharged crimes, including a prior sale of crack-cocaine to another individual, were denied. Additionally, the trial court restricted defense counsel’s cross-examination as to certain aspects of the informant’s employment relationship with the police and her prior use of drugs. On appeal, the defendant contends that the cumulative effect of these rulings deprived him of a fair trial. We disagree.

Although the challenged statements concerning uncharged *346crimes would have been more appropriately redacted, we find that, viewing the record as a whole, the proof of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and, therefore, the error was harmless *(see, People v Cook,*42 NY2d 204; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Cody,*149 AD2d 722).

Furthermore, the scope and extent of cross-examination is within the sound discretion of the trial court *(People v Sorge,*301 NY 198, 202). In the present case, defense counsel was afforded extensive leeway in questioning prosecution witnesses on the controverted topics. Counsel was permitted to inquire, *inter alia,*into how long the informant had worked for the police and how much she was paid, as well as the informant’s prior addiction to cocaine and her drug use at the time of the purchases from the defendant. Therefore, the limitations imposed by the court did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion *(see, People v Brown,*162 AD2d 695).

Finally, we decline to disturb the sentence *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Hooper, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 3, 2013

t0826

Order 

Clerk

September 3, 2013

147198

DAMIAN LANG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147198

COA: 307141

Oakland CC: 2010-115921-CH

GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING,

Defendant-Appellee, 

and

CAROL WALSH and STARPOINTE

MORTGAGE,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 23, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### PHARISS v. STATE.

No. 22714.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 19, 1944.

Aubrey Davee, of Brady, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of McCulloch County for a violation of the liquor laws, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $400.

The complaint and information appear regular. The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exceptions. We find nothing for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court'7⁄8 affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26082]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[Docket No. 980113011-0267-03; I.D. 061896A]
RIN 0648-AK34


Endangered and Threatened Species; Regulations Consolidation; 
Correction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final rule 
pertaining to the consolidation and reorganization of existing 
regulations regarding implementation of the Endangered Species Act 
which was published in the Federal Register on March 23, 1999.

DATES: Effective October 11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Donna Wieting, Chief, Marine Mammal Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroline Good, phone: (301) 713-2322.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In the final rule, titled Endangered and Threatened Species; 
Regulations Consolidation; Final Rule, published in the Federal 
Register on March 23, 1999,(64 FR 14052), three errors were made in 
identifying the eastern population of Steller sea lions.
    NMFS is correcting these errors and is making no substantive change 
to the document in this action.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations contain errors which 
misidentify the stock parameters of the eastern population of the 
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine 
mammals, Transportation.

    Dated: October 4, 2000.
William T. Hogarth,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    Accordingly, 50 CFR part 223 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendments:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

    1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.; 31 
U.S.C. 9701.

    2. Revise paragraph (c) of Sec.  223.102 to read as follows:


Sec. 223.102  Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (c) Marine mammals. Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi); 
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), eastern population, which 
consists of all Steller sea lions from breeding colonies located east 
of 144 deg. W. longitude.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-26082 Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
#### Fausto ARMENDARIZ, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 22569.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 19, 1943.

Fryer & Milstead, of El Paso, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The appellant has filed his personal affidavit, asking that his appeal be dismissed as he no longer desires to prosecute same. The request is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals- has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

MELODY JOY CANTU and

DR. RODRIGO CANTU, 

Plaintiffs

V.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and

DIGITAL FORENSICS 

CORPORATION, LLC

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO 5:20-CV-00746-JKP (HJB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL RECORDS AND 

GRANTING DEFENDANT, DR. SANDRA GUERRA’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

AGAINST PLAINTIFFS AND/OR PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL

On this date came on to be considered Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Protective Order 

Regarding Plaintiff’s Production of Medical Records [Doc. 101] (the “Motion”) and Defendant, 

D. Sandra Guerra’s Response to Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Protective Order Regarding 

Plaintiff’s Production of Medical Records and Request for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs and/or 

Plaintiffs’ Counsel [Doc. ____] (the “Response”). Upon due consideration of the Motion and the 

Response, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED in its entirety. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Protective Order 

Regarding Plaintiff’s Production of Medical Records is DENIED in all respects. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant, Dr. Sandra Guerra, shall be permitted to 

serve her third-party subpoenas for the production of Plaintiffs’ medical and billing records and 

Plaintiffs shall provide Defendant, Dr. Sandra Guerra, and/or any necessary third-party with a 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 104-8 Filed 09/01/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

HIPAA authorization to effectuate the production of Plaintiffs’ medical and billing records 

pursuant to such third-party subpoenas.

Pursuant to Fed. Rule. Civ. P. 37(a)(5), IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff, 

Melody Joy Cantu, shall pay Defendant, Dr. Sandra Guerra, $____________ for the reasonable 

attorneys’ fees incurred by Defendant, Dr. Guerra, as a result of the Motion filed by Plaintiff and 

Plaintiff’s prior opposition to the entry of Confidentiality and Protective Order [Doc. 88] and shall 

tender such amount to Defendant, Dr. Sandra Guerra’s counsel of record within fourteen (14) days 

of the date hereof.

Pursuant to Fed. Rule. Civ. P. 37(a)(5), IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ 

counsel shall pay Defendant, Dr. Sandra Guerra, $____________ for the reasonable attorneys’ 

fees incurred by Defendant, Dr. Guerra, as a result of the Motion filed by Plaintiff and the prior 

express representations made by counsel for Plaintiff under penalty of perjury that a confidentiality 

and protective order was not necessary for discovery and shall tender such amount to Defendant, 

Dr. Sandra Guerra’s counsel of record within fourteen (14) days of the date hereof.

It is so ORDERED.

Dated: ____________________ __________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 104-8 Filed 09/01/22 Page 2 of 2
#### HEINRICHS v. STATE.

No. 26592.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 11, 1953.

No attorney for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a companion case to and grows out of the same transaction as that of Phillips v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 263 S.W.2d 159.

The facts, which we held to be sufficient to support the conviction, are stated in. that opinion.

The contention that the search of the automobile was illegal was there overruled.

For the reasons stated, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,467
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  402,771
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     59,863
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               729,831
<PP&E>                                       8,382,646
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,884,243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,148,492
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,590,189
<BONDS>                                      1,094,338
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       111,385
<OTHER-SE>                                     980,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,148,493
<SALES>                                      1,385,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,623,161
<CGS>                                        1,186,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,261,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               493,697
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (63,908)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (276,040)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (97,464)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (178,576)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (178,576)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (1.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.62)



</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 128 (Thursday, July 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 38006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15638]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Utah Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that an orientation and 
planning meeting of the Utah Advisory Committee to the Commission will 
convene at 6:00 p.m. (MDT) on Wednesday, July 16, 2014, in the Cannon 
Room, City and County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, 
Utah 84111. The purpose of the orientation meeting is to inform the 
newly appointed Committee members about the rules of operation of 
federal advisory committees and to select additional officers, as 
determined by the Committee. The purpose of the planning meeting is to 
discuss potential topics that the Committee may wish to study.
    Persons who desire additional information may contact the Rocky 
Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 999 18th 
Street, Suite 1380 South, Denver, CO 80202, phone 303-866-1040 and fax 
(303) 866-1050, or email to ebohor@usccr.gov.
    Persons needing accessibility services should contact the Rocky 
Mountain Regional Office at least 10 working days before the scheduled 
date of the meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both 
before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this 
advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the 
above phone number, email or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated: June 30, 2014.
David Mussatt,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2014-15638 Filed 7-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5610 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain coupon holders. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2012 

Mr. ELLISON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain coupon holders. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN COUPON HOLDERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5610 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Accordion style file folders 

made of plastic material, 

with a flap secured by a 

snap, magnet or elastic 

band and hook closure, not 

exceeding 203.2 millimeters in height, width or 

depth, and with two or 

more separate pockets for 

organization of coupons or 

other contents (provided 

for in subheading 

4202.32.20) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Edward E. BUTLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 26826.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

William H. Scott, Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, five years.

Accompanying the record is an affidavit in proper form executed by appellant requesting the dismissal of the appeal.

The request is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
#### COOK v. STATE (two cases).

Nos. 26503, 26505.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 24, 1953.

*218No attorney on appeal for appellant.

William H. Scott, Crim. Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated, with a prior conviction alleged to enhance the punishment; the punishment, three years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14

- 12770

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:13

- cv

- 60948

- DLB

SERGE BRALO,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

Cross Appellant,

versus

SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellant

Cross Appellee.

________________________

Appeal s from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

( March 30, 2015 ) Case: 14-12770 Date Filed: 03/30/2015 Page: 1 of 22 Before HULL and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and BOWEN, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Spirit Airlines , Inc. appeals the denial of its M otion for N ew T rial

as well as the partial denial of its M otion for Re mit titur or , in the A lternative,

Motion for New Trial as to e xcessive d amages. Plaintiff Serge Bralo cross

- appea ls

the district court’s denial of Bralo’s post

- trial Motion for f rontpay

. After careful

review of the briefs and record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no

reversible error in the rulings of the district court. And we affirm the district

court’s entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff Bralo against the defendant Spirit

Airlines, Inc. in the amount of $453,201.01, which includes : (1) $143,201.01 in

back pay and prejudgment interest; (2) $ 1 0,000 in compensatory damages; and (3)

$300,000 in punitive damages. Post

- judgment interest shall accrue pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1961(a).

AFFIRMED.

* Honorable Dudley H. Bowen, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District

of Georgia, sitting by designation.

Case: 14-12770 Date Filed: 03/30/2015 Page: 2 of 2
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Restaurant Training Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Victoria Z. Carlton, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
31st day of March, 2003.




<PAGE>
/s/ Victoria Z. Carlton
-------------------------------
Victoria Z. Carlton
President and CEO
Restaurant Training Corporation
##### 



EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



---



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 of WFS Financial
2002-2 Owner Trust of our report dated February 6, 2003, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of Financial Security
Assurance Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and
for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2002,
which appears as an exhibit in Financial Security Assurance Holdings
Ltd.s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2002.

/s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 28, 2003
#### SHEVLIN-MATHIEU LUMBER COMPANY v. RAINY LAKE RIVER BOOM CORPORATION.2

July 28, 1911.

Nos. 17,159—(183).

Case followed.

Action in the district court for Beltrami county to recover possession of cer*534tain pine saw logs or in case -return' of the property could not be had, for $7,500. The pleadings are substantially the same as in the Namakan case. The case was tried before Wright, J., who made findings of fact and as conclusion oí law found that at the time of commencement of the action plaintiff was entitled to possession of the logs and that they were unlawfully detained by defendant, which-was not Entitled -to áñy lien. From the judgment entered pursuant to the findings, defendant appealed.

Affirmed.

*Charles Loring*and *Dodge*<£• *Tautges,*for appellant.

*R. J. Powell*and *C. J. Rochxoood,*for respondent.

2

 Reported in 132 N. W. 263.

Per Cdriam.

The opinion filed in Namakan Lumber Cmpany *v.*Rainy Lake River Boom Corp., supra, page 296, 131 N. W. 259, applies to this case. For the reasons there stated, the judgment herein is affirmed.- ■
* 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. 00-21145

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROSENDO ROSALES-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-472-1

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

August 2, 2001

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rosendo Rosales-Gonzalez (Rosales) appeals the 57-month

sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for

illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He asserts that his felony

convictions that resulted in his increased sentence under 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b) were an element of the offense that should have

been charged in the indictment.

Rosales acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the

Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
No. 00-21145

-2-

523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for

Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule

Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United

States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert.

denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Rosales’s argument is

foreclosed, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.