alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 522



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I No. CR-13-491 NICHOLAS BURRIS APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered October 1, 2014 APPEAL FROM THE UNION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-12-395] HONORABLE HAMILTON H. SINGLETON, JUDGE MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; REBRIEFING ORDERED PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge Appellant Nicholas Burris was convicted by a Union County jury of one count of rape and one count of residential burglary. He was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years’ imprisonment for the two convictions. Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Burris’s attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit. The motion is accompanied by an abstract, brief, and addendum purporting to list all adverse rulings and to explain why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. Burris was provided a copy of counsel’s brief and notified of his right to file aCite as 2014 Ark. App. 522

list of points within thirty days; he has elected to file pro se points, and the State has filed a responsive brief. We previously ordered rebriefing in this case because the record did not contain a transcript of voir dire. Burris v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 37. That deficiency has been corrected, but we must again deny Burris’s counsel’s motion to withdraw because counsel has failed to submit an abstract and addendum that complies with the requirements of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The abstract we have been provided reflects that a CD containing an interview with Burris was played in open court. In addition, a transcript of that interview was introduced into evidence and handed out to the jury to read along as the recording was played. The text of the transcript has not been abstracted, and there is no copy of the CD in the addendum. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i); Copeland v. State , 2013 Ark. App. 6. Pursuant to Rule 4-2(b)(3), we afford Burris’s counsel an opportunity to cure these deficiencies. Counsel is directed to file a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum within fifteen days from the date of this opinion. Motion to withdraw denied without prejudice; rebriefing ordered. G RUBERand VAUGHT , JJ., agree. N. Mark Klappenbach , for appellant. Dustin McDaniel , Att’y Gen., by: Rachel H. Kemp , Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63890-63891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27427]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated March 23, 2000, and published in the Federal 
Register on March 30, 2000, (65 FR 16963), Lilly Del Caribe, Inc., 
Chemical Plant, Kilometer 146.7, State Road 2, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 
00680, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of 
dextropropoxyphene (9273), a basic class of controlled substance listed 
in Schedule II.
    The firm plans to bulk manufacture product for distribution to its 
customers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in Title 21, United States Code, Section 823(a) and 
determined that the registration of Lilly Del Caribe, Inc., to 
manufacture dextropropoxyphene is consistent with the public interest 
at this time. DEA has investigated Lilly Del Caribe, Inc. on a regular 
basis to ensure that the company's continued registration is consistent 
with the public interest. This investigation included inspection and 
testing of the company's physical security systems, audits of the 
company's records, verification of the company's compliance with state 
and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. 
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the 
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby 
orders that the application submitted by the above firm for 
registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled 
substance listed above is granted.


[[Page 63891]]


    Dated: October 16, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-27427 Filed 10-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

HABIBOLLAH ELAHINEJAD, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

 and 

VARIOUS RESTAURANT FURNITURE 

AND GOODS OF IRANIAN ORIGIN, 

Defendant.

No. 16-55559 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00259-GW-E 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 11, 2017**

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Habibollah Elahinejad appeals pro se from the district court’s summary 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 16-55559 

judgment in a civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. §§ 1595a(c)(1)(A) and 

1595a(c)(2)(B) for goods seized from a shipment from Dubai, United Arab 

Emirates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

United States v. $133, 420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir. 2012). 

We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Elahinejad

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he had a colorable 

interest in the property. See id. at 638 (“[I]n a civil forfeiture action, a claimant’s 

bare assertion of an ownership or possessory interest, in the absence of some other 

evidence, is not enough to survive a motion for summary judgment.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Elahinejad’s contention that the 

district court did not consider his evidence submitted in opposition to summary 

judgment. 

Because we affirm summary judgment, we do not reach Elahinejad’s other 

contentions on appeal. See United States v. $15,500 in U.S. Currency, 558 F.2d 

1359, 1361 (9th Cir. 1977) (when a claimant fails to establish the threshold 

requirement of standing, the claimant’s challenges to the merits of the forfeiture 

action cannot be reached).

AFFIRMED.
Jan 18th 201 7

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Amendment to Exemption 11426 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform

Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket NO. FAA

- 2015

-

0173

Dear Sir or Madam:

Alaska Aerial Media LLC. was issued an Exemption numbered 11426 (hereinafter the

Exemption) for the purpose of aerial cinematography and videography. Alaska Aerial Media

requests a extension to exemption 11426 for another 2 (two) years

.

Alaska Aerial Media LLC, offers the following reasons why granting this petition for a extension

to exemption 11426 is in the public ’ s interest. Approval of this ex tension will continue to allow

adequate response time for our existing energy utilities customers for inspecting power outages or

obstruction anomalies after a wind or snow storm. For assisting existing search and rescue

customers in emergency operations in which manned assets are not available in rapid response

time frame. For existing news customers in reporting breaking stories and live traffic assessments

for public knowledge. The existing waiver process for part 107 does not allow for our existing

rapid respo nse contracted services. This makes our ability to respond to our large service area

with existing COAs impossible. We believe it is in the best interest of our local community to

allow us permission to the requested above.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning this request for

amendment to the Exemption

Sincerely,

Ryan P. Marlow

Alaska Aerial Media

7960 Upper OMalley Road

Anchorage Alaska 99507

Cell # (907)

- 717

- 9794
## NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 00 1 7 8

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

On April 20, 2022, relator the State of Texas filed a petition for writ of mandamus

asserting that “ the trial court acted outside of its jurisdiction and abused its discretion in

granting [a] motion to abate condemnation proceedings for alleged violations of the Texas

Proper ty Code.”

The Court requests that the real part ies in interest, George Roberts, Olivia Roberts,

and Rita Collier, or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief2 sought

, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of

ten days from the date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

22 nd day of April , 202 2

.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23.

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-115672, 333-45249 and 333-45251) and on Form
S-3 (No. 333-114730) of Getty Realty Corp. of our report dated March 15, 2007
relating to the financial statements, management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report
to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We
also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 15,
2007 relating to the financial statement schedules, which appears in this Form
10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 15, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         206
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  192
<ALLOWANCES>                                   66
<INVENTORY>                                    445
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               781
<PP&E>                                         46
<DEPRECIATION>                                 12
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 873
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,085
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       196
<OTHER-SE>                                     (508)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   873
<SALES>                                        1,235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,235
<CGS>                                          504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               632
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             33
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                66
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            66
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   66
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .04
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
10QSB REPORT FOR THE QUARTER AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH 10QSB.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000095898
<NAME> SWISS CHALET , INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,781,785
<SECURITIES>                                 1,057,631
<RECEIVABLES>                                  461,719
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,849
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,363,711
<PP&E>                                       6,523,131
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,994,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,226,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          714,488
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       700,581
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,485,022
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,006,791
<SALES>                                      3,560,723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,867,134
<CGS>                                           58,464
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,757,827
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,050,843
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,050,843
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,050,843
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our reportdated March 13, 2008, accompanying the consolidated financial statementsincluded in the Annual Report of Evolving Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2007.  We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements ofEvolving Systems, Inc. on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-122476, effective February 2,2005, and File No. 333-112082, effective January 22, 2004) and onForms S-8 (File No. 333-144852, effective July, 25, 2007, File No. 333-141527,effective March 23, 2007, File No. 333-116085, effective June 2,2004, File No. 333-103655, effective March 7, 2003, File No. 333-89438,effective May 31, 2002, File No. 333-61446, effective May 23,2001, File No. 333-82473, effective July 8, 1999, File No. 333-60779,effective August 6, 1998, and File No. 333-58285, effective July 1,1998).

 

/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP

Denver, Colorado

March 13, 2008

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3286 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3286

 To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse States that use 
  State funds to operate National Parks during the Federal Government 
                   shutdown, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 11, 2013

Mr. Daines (for himself, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Tipton, Mr. Cramer, 
   Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. 
  Stewart, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Cook, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. 
  Duncan of Tennessee, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Smith of 
  Missouri, and Mr. Lamborn) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse States that use 
  State funds to operate National Parks during the Federal Government 
                   shutdown, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting States, Opening National 
Parks Act''.

SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS TO STATES TO OPEN NATIONAL PARKS TO THE 
              PUBLIC.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after funds are made 
available, the Secretary of the Treasury, using funds in the Treasury 
not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable corporate or other 
revenues, receipts, and funds, for the several departments, agencies, 
corporations, and other organizational units of government for the 
fiscal year 2014, shall reimburse any State for activities described in 
subsection (b).
    (b) Activities Eligible for Reimbursement.--The Secretary of the 
Treasury shall reimburse States under subsection (a) for State funds 
expended for activities that meet all of the following criteria:
            (1) The activity was conducted in fiscal year 2014 during a 
        time when the Federal Government was not conducting that 
        activity due to the partial shutdown of the Federal Government.
            (2) The activity was necessary to operate and open to the 
        public a National Park located, in whole or in part, within the 
        State.
            (3) The activity was authorized under Federal law.
            (4) The activity was conducted in a manner and at a level 
        not substantially greater in scope or cost than how the 
        activity would have been conducted by the Federal Government.
            (5) The activity is not a settlement of or defense against 
        a claim of liability on the part of the State.
                                 <all>
```
#### CASTLEBERRY v. STATE.

No. 24992.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. *17, 1951.*

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, *Judge.*

The appeal is from a conyiction for felony theft with ten years sentence in the penitentiary.

The State’s evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. Appellant was found in possession of the property, admitted his guilt and showed the officers where a portion of the same was hidden. He made no denial of his guilt and offered no evidence in his behalf.

The only bill of exception in the case complains of the introduction of the records showing former convictions for felonies in other counties. The record discloses that such convictions were shown for a person of the same name, in accordance with the allegations in the first count of the indictment. No' proof was made that appellant was the same person.

There was a second count in the indictment which alleged the commission of the felony described the same as that in the first count, but it does not allege the former convictions. When the evidence was closed the court submitted the case to the jury on the second count only. The verdict was rendered accordingly and gave appellant the maximum penalty of ten years. We held in Rodgers v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 442, 131 S.W.2d 766, in an identical situation, that no error was committed.

We observe that in sentencing *the*defendant the court failed to apply the indeterminate sentence law in that he was sentenced to serve not less than ten years and not more than ten years. The sentence is reformed so as to commit him for a term of not less than two years nor more than ten years.

We find no reversible error and the judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL ACOSTA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 199 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL ACOSTA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 200 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL ACOSTA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 201 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of October, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 24703.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 15, 1950.

None on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant plead guilty to a violation of the liquor laws in Kaufman County and was given a term of 120 days on the county farm and a fine of $200. Being dissatisfied therewith he appeals.

There are no bills of exception nor statement of facts in the record.

It is evident from the verdict that the only place where appellant could be confined was in the county jail. We have heretofore held in Moore v. State, 7 Tex.App. 14, that the place of confinement, if mentioned in the verdict and was an improper one, such mention could be disregarded as mere surplusage, and the intent of the jury being plainly manifest and no place other than the county jail being provided in misdemeanor cases, Art. 48, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., the judgment rightly specifies the jail as the place of confinement.

In 42 Tex.Jur. p. 488, sec. 378, it is said: “In the absence of a statute so requiring, the place of confinement need not be stated in the verdict if the intention of the jury to assess the punishment at imprisonment in a certain place can reasonably be ascertained therefrom. Accordingly verdicts which failed to state the place have ■been upheld where the facts were such as that under the law there could legally be no place for confinement or punishment other than the penitentiary or the county jail,” citing Jabalie v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 412, 81 S.W.2d 509; Moreland v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 77 S.W.2d 690; Willcox v. State, 68 Tex.Cr.R. 138, 150 S.W. 898.

It also appears that certain acts of misconduct were alleged upon the part of the jury, all set forth in the motion fo,r a new trial It is evident that the trial court *825heard evidence thereon and decided such matter against appellant. However, there does not appear in the record any statement of such facts heard on such motion. We are therefore relegated to the trial court’s order in overruling such motion, and he finds no error shown.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed.