alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

GASTON, HOUTZ, and MYERS

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Ambronsio W. SUAREZ

Fireman Recruit (E-1), U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 202200075

_________________________

Decided: 15 June 2022

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

Military Judge: 

Jonathan T. Stephens (arraignment)

Angela J. Tang (trial)

Sentence adjudged 2 December 2021 by a general court-martial convened at Naval Station Great Lakes, Illinois, consisting of a military 

judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: confinement for 

21 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Commander Kyle C. Kneese, JAGC, USN
United States v. Suarez, NMCCA No. 202200075

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.1

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

KYLE D. MEEDER

Clerk of Court

 

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 213 (Thursday, November 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28143]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

[Docket No. TB-00-23]


Public Hearing Regarding Establishment of a New Tobacco Auction 
Market

    Notice is hereby given of a public hearing regarding an application 
to combine the Fairmont-Fair Bluff, North Carolina and Loris, South 
Carolina, tobacco markets.
    Dates: November 9, 2000.
    Time: 9:30 a.m. local time.
    Place: Dales Family Seafood and Steakhouse, 100 701 Bypass, Tabor 
City, North Carolina.
    Purpose: To hear testimony and to receive evidence regarding an 
application for tobacco inspection and price support services to a new 
market, which would be a consolidation of the currently designated 
markets of Fairmont-Fair Bluff, North Carolina and Loris, South 
Carolina. The application was made by Robert L. Boyd, Sales Supervisor, 
Loris, South Carolina, and Curtis McGirt, Sales Supervisor, Fairmont, 
North Carolina.
    This public hearing will be conducted pursuant to the joint policy 
statement and regulations governing the extension of tobacco inspection 
and price support services to new markets and to additional sales on 
designated markets (7 CFR 29.1 through 29.3), issued under the Tobacco 
Inspection Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.) and the Commodity 
Credit Corporation Charter Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 714 et seq.).

    Dated: October 27, 2000.
Kathleen A. Merrigan,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 00-28143 Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
#### POOL v. STATE.

No. 24576.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 15, 1950.

' Tom S. Williams, San Antonio, Hayden C. Covington, Brooklyn, N. Y. (member of Bar of Texas), for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP,’Judge.

The prosecution was under an ordinance of the City of Seymour which forbids the sale of goods, wares and merchandise on the streets or sidewalks of the city. A fine of $150.00 was assessed by the county court on appeal.

The appellant testified that he was a preacher in. a sect or organization denominated Jehovah’s Witnesses; that he was distributing literature which, he said, contained sermons teaching the doctrine of his organization. These he offered for sale, but stated that he gave away a great many copies and that they did not collect as much as the literature cost.

A discussion of the question raised cannot, at this time, be of importance. The subject has been before the Supreme Court of the United States in so many different ways that every conceivable phase appears to have been considered and, so far as our investigation discloses, these cases are reversed by the highest court having power to pass on the constitutionality of the ordinances and. laws under which prosecutions are had. See Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265; Jami-son v. Texas, 318 U.S.-413, 63 S.Ct.'669, 87 L.Ed. 869; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U-S. 296, 60 S.Ct 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213; and numerous other cases in recent years, none of which expresses a contrary opinion.

In view of the foregoing authorities, we are constrained to hold that the ordinance, if construed to prohibit the acts alleged and proven in the instant case, would be in violation of the Constitution of the United States." Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
#### Geiselman, Appellant, *v.*Wise et al., Appellees.

(No. 27886

Decided June 19, 1940.)

*94
      *Mr. Framk S. Gulp, Mr. A. S. Beach*and *Mr. John K. Sawyers, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Mr. G. M. Biegle*and *Mr. Charles A. Blackford,*for appellees.

Weygandt, C. J.

The single, decisive question requiring the consideration of the court is presented by the first ground of the demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the operative facts alleged. In other words, conceding the truth of the somewhat meager factual allegations in the plaintiff’s amended petition, is a cause of action stated?

A study of the plaintiff’s briefs discloses that he *95relies chiefly upon the decision of the Court of Appeals of Monroe county in the case of *State, ex rel. Fulton,*v. *Loar.*In so doing he apparently has overlooked the fact that the questioned conveyance in that case was executed in the year 1930 when Section 8606, General Code, providing for vested dower was still in effect. That section was of course repealed and replaced by Section 10502-1, General Code (114 Ohio Laws, 337), which became effective January 1, 1932. The latter section provides for *inchoate*dower but not for *vested*dower. An examination of the opinion in the *Loar case, supra,*clearly shows that the only dower there involved was vested or consummate. On the other hand the only dower involved in the instant case is merely inchoate or contingent, and furthermore the three questioned conveyances were executed May 8, 1935 — more than three years after the effective date of Section 10502-1, General Code, which makes no provision for vested dower. According to the general rule a mere inchoate right of dower cannot be reached by a creditor’s bill. 19 Corpus Juris, 494; 17 American Jurisprudence, 702.

The judgments of the lower courts sustaining the demurrer to the amended petition are affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Day, Zimmerman, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur. Williams, J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financials contained in the body of the accompanying Form 10-K and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,319
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,154
<ALLOWANCES>                                       131
<INVENTORY>                                      5,827
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,373
<PP&E>                                          11,929
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,604
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,350
<BONDS>                                          5,968
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           136
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,820
<SALES>                                         28,669
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,669
<CGS>                                           19,064
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   583
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   379
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 583
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,388
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,269
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,119
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,119
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08


</TABLE>
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-20-00009-CV

__________________

GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

ERIC WAYNE PHILLIPS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 60th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B-202,419

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Gabriel Rodriguez Lopez, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. In 

his motion, Lopez represents the parties have reached an agreement that resolved

their dispute. He filed the motion voluntarily and before this Court resolved his 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). There are no other parties to the appeal. For 

these reasons, we grant Lopez’s motion and dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM
2

Submitted on September 2, 2020

Opinion Delivered September 3, 2020

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
STATE OFTENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAND CONSERVATION

May 14, 2015
Ms. Heather McTeerToney Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region IV DIVISION OFAIR POLLUTION CONTROL WILLIAM R. SNODGRASSTENNESSEETOWER

312 ROSA L. PARKSAVENUE, 15TH FLOOR NASHVILLE, TN 37243

Atlanta Federal Center, 12thFloor 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 Subject: Request to incorporate a rev1s1on to the Knox County Air Quality Management Regulations intothe FederallyApproved SIPforTennessee
DearAdministratorToney:
The Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Control received a request from the Knox County Department ofAir Quality Management to incorporate into the State Implementation Plan and submit to EPA, a revision to the Knox County Air Quality Management Regulations portion of the SIP. The requested revision amends Section 25.6 of the Knox County Air Quality Management Department's regulations. Specifically, the revision to Section 26.5.C changes the date of submission by facilities to meet the requirement ofthe CAA 182(a)(3)(B). This rule requires the submittal ofan annual emission statementfrom sources that emit 25 tons peryear or more of nitrogen oxides orvolatile organic compounds. This revision revises the submission date from July 15 to March 31 in order to align with the rules ofthe State ofTennessee.
This revision to the Knox County portion of the SIP was approved by the State Air Pollution Control Board on May 13th, 2015. A copy ofthe Board Order (15-004) is attached.
Your prompt consideration of this request is appreciated. If you need further information or documentation, please contact Marc Corrigan at (615) 532-0616. Sincerely, 

# r!:tt!1!t.i7 )

Technical Secretary TennesseeAir Pollution Control Board
EnclosuresHeather McTeerToney Regional Administrator April 9, 2015 Page 2 of2

cc (electronically): Mr. R. Scott Davis, Branch Chief US EPA Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, US EPA Ms. Kelly Sheckler, US EPA Ms. Lynne

### A. Liddington, Knoxville, TN Mr. Malcolm H. Butler, DAPC, Nashville, TN Mr. MarcCorrigan, DAPC, Nashville, TN
* 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. 97-20847

Summary Calendar

 

FRANK E. LITTLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HOUSTON CITY JAIL et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CV-1073

- - - - - - - - - -

April 5, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, anD WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Frank E. Little moves this court for permission to file his

appellate brief out-of-time. The motion is GRANTED. Little has

also filed motions to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) and for

appointment of appellate counsel. The appellees ask the court to

strike Little’s appellate brief, to reconsider an order

reinstating this appeal, and to dismiss the appeal. 

“If upon the hearing of any interlocutory motion . . . it

shall appear to the Court that the appeal is frivolous and 
No. 97-20847

-2-

entirely without merit, the appeal will be dismissed.” 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. 

Our review of Little’s appellate brief convinces us that his

appeal should be dismissed because it lacks arguable legal merit. 

Little’s arguments concerning the dismissal of certain out-ofstate defendants are frivolous, as are his arguments concerning

the magistrate judge’s handling of a status conference. Little

does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his claims

against the remaining defendants based on Little’s refusal to

comply with an order to amend his pleadings to plead his case

with greater specificity. 

Accordingly, Little’s motions to proceed IFP on appeal and

for appointment of counsel are DENIED, the appellees’ motion to

dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The appellees’ motions to strike Little’s brief

and for reconsideration of the reinstatement of the appeal are

DENIED AS MOOT. We caution Little that any additional appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Little should review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous. 

 MOTION TO FILE BRIEF OUT-OF-TIME GRANTED; MOTIONS FOR IFP

AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS;

SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; MOTIONS TO STRIKE BRIEF AND FOR

RECONSIDERATION DENIED AS MOOT.
<PAGE>

                     32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CEO

                    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 Quarterly Report of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund II,
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, George S. Springsteen, 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, to the best of knowledge:

          (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.

/s/      George S. Springsteen
------------------------------
George S. Springsteen
Chief Executive Officer

May 24, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The data schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Boise
Cascade Office Products Corporation's Balance Sheet at June 30, 1998, and
from its Statement of Income for the six months ended June 30, 1998.  The
information presented is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          37,566
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  379,213
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,821
<INVENTORY>                                    191,267
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               640,554
<PP&E>                                         363,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                 145,251
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,330,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          449,386
<BONDS>                                        307,126
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           658
<OTHER-SE>                                     540,243
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,330,906
<SALES>                                      1,492,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,492,671
<CGS>                                        1,108,784
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,108,784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               317,616
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 53,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,483
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,317
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,317
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         790,085
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,183,143
<ALLOWANCES>                                   273,000
<INVENTORY>                                    452,056
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,246,616
<PP&E>                                       1,481,272
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,018,803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,013,492
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,092,289
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    820,000
<COMMON>                                     8,682,939
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,013,492
<SALES>                                      3,499,029
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,746,221
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,716,960
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,247,223
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (217,962)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              99,032
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (332,078)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (332,078)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                                                                      ----------


                            ACT MANUFACTURING, INC.

           Weighted Shares Used in Computation of Earnings per Share


          Shares used in the net income per common share computation are the
weighted average number of common shares outstanding plus common share
equivalents.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                            Quarter ended September 30,
                                          -------------------------------
                                                1996             1995
                                          ---------------  --------------
<S>                                       <C>              <C>
                                                  ( in thousands)
Weighted average number of                   
    common shares outstanding                    8,772           8,644
Common share equivalents                           272             335
                                                 -----           -----
TOTAL                                            9,044           8,979
                                                 =====           =====
 
 
                                                 Nine Months ended
                                                 ----------------- 
                                                    September 30,
                                                 -----------------
                                                1996             1995
                                          ---------------  -------------   
                                                  ( in thousands)
Weighted average number of                   
    common shares outstanding                    8,739           7,649
Common share equivalents                           272             323
                                                 -----           -----
TOTAL                                            9,011           7,972
                                                 =====           =====
 
</TABLE>