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

Appeal by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered April 1, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree (six counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) by permission, from an order of the same court, dated December 2, 1988, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment.

Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.

The defendant contends that the judgment of conviction should be reversed because there was insufficient independent proof to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony as required by CPL 60.22 (1). The accomplice, who had earlier pleaded guilty to felony murder charges in connection with the criminal action against him, testified regarding the defendant’s actions which resulted in the deaths of three persons during the course of a robbery. We find that the testimony of two nonaccomplice prosecution witnesses was sufficient "to connect the defendant to the crime so as to reasonably satisfy the jury that the accomplice [was] telling the truth” *(People v Glasper,*52 NY2d 970, 971; *People v Murphy,*153 AD2d 646).

The trial court denied the defense counsel’s request to recall a prosecution witness for further cross-examination regarding his possible bias due to his past experience as a police informant. Although this was error *(see generally, Davis v Alaska,*415 US 308, 316), we find that it was harmless as the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to his conviction *(cf., People v Simmons,*75 NY2d 738; *see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Driver,*150 AD2d 718).

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel is without merit. Counsel’s strategy and tactics, while ultimately unsuccessful, were reasonable, and we find that the defendant received meaningful representation considering the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, *638including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Eiber, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy Longdue, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]). We agree with defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence on the People’s direct case a portion of the affidavit of defendant’s attorney which had been submitted in support of defendant’s omnibus motion *(see, Simmons v United States,*390 US 377). However, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, we conclude that the error was harmless *(People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242).

Upon our review of the record, we find that the evidence was sufficient to establish the physical injury element of burglary in the first degree *(see, Matter of Philip A.,*49 NY2d 198) and, in our view, defendant was not denied the opportunity to defend himself fully on that issue.

Since the court specifically admonished the jury that they should not draw any inferences from defendant’s jail attire, his brief appearance before the jury in jail attire did not deprive defendant of his right to a fair trial. We have reviewed the other claims raised by defendant on appeal and *949find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.—burglary, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Lawton, JJ.
(December 13, 1990)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard M. Moore, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered February 29, 1988, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that the sentence he received for violating his probation was harsh and excessive in light of his sincere desire to overcome his alcohol problem and his rehabilitative needs in this regard. Given defendant’s criminal record, his history of being a serious probation risk and his failure to cooperate in an alcohol treatment program, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence of 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment *(see, People v Smith,*136 AD2d 867, *lv denied*71 NY2d 1033).

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-LC22 

 

Per the Pooling and AdministrationAgreement dated as of September 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"): 

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and 

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period. 

 

 

February 27, 2017 

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
1 15

‐ 3833

Millennium Partners, L.P., et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. U.S. Bank National Association



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT



## SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY

ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT = S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY

ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL

APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ ). A PARTY

CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY

COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley

Square, in the City of New York, on the 6 th day of July, two thousand sixteen.

PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY,

DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circuit Judges.

___________________ __________________

MILLENNIUM PARTNERS, L.P., MILLENNIUM

FIXED INCOME, LTD.,

Plaintiffs

‐ Appellants

,

v. 15

‐ 38332 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant

‐ Appellee

,

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE

ACQUISITION TRUST 2006

‐ WF1,

Defendants

. 1

___________________ __________________

FOR APPELLANT: PETER DEXTER ST. PHILLIP, JR. (Geoffrey M.

Horn, Deborah Rogozinski, on the brief ), Lowey

Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., White Plains,

NY.

FOR APPELLEE: ROBERT S. FRIEDMAN (Mark E. McGrath, on the

brief ), Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP,

New York, NY.

Appeal from the United States District Court from the Southern District of

New York (Baer, J. ; Koeltl, J. ). 2

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is

AFFIRMED

.

1 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption to reflect that

U.S. Bank National Association is no longer a party to this appeal.

2 This case was reassigned to the Honorable John G. Koeltl after the passing of the

Honorable Harold Baer Jr.3 Plaintiffs

‐ Appellants Millennium Partners, L.P. and Millennium Fixed

Income, Ltd. (together, “Plaintiffs”) appeal the District Court’s dismissal of their

breach of contract claim against Defendant

‐ Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, National

Association. 3 We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the Judge Baer in

his thorough and well

‐ reasoned opinion and order, Millennium Partners, L.P. v.

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n

, No. 12 Civ. 7581(HB), 2013 WL 1655990 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17,

2013), and Judge Koetl in his similarly thorough and well

‐ reasoned denial of

Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, Millennium Partners, L.P. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l

Ass’n

, No. 12 Civ. 7581(JGK), 2015 WL 6454844 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2015).

We have considered all of the Plaintiffs’ arguments and find them to be

without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM

.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3 Defendant J.P. Morgan Acquisition Trust 2006

‐ WF1 is not a party to this appeal.
#### Ex parte RAMOS.

No. 21582.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 19, 1941.

L. R. Patton, of Galveston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Relator desires a reduction of bond from $750 as the same had been theretofore fixed by the court under a prior writ of habeas corpus.

The record merely shows that prospective bondsmen, approached upon the part of relator, thought the bond fixed by the court was too high, but agreed to go on a $500 bond.

*1110The record does not show any facts from which the character of the offense - can be gathered, save that relator is charged with an attempt to rape a married woman. It is also shown that the relator has already had the benefit of one writ of habeas cor-' pus, at which hearing bail herein was reduced from $1,500 to $750.

The mere fact that a person approached, and requested to go on a bond, thinks that the bond is set too high, would not be a moving reason for this court to also say that such bond was set at too great a figure.

There is no' reason shown herein why this bond is too onerous or excessive. We are offered no more cogent reason why this court should reduce this amount.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.
Case 4:22-cr-00325-O Document 24 Filed 11/09/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 33
Case 4:22-cr-00325-O Document 24 Filed 11/09/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 34
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

s0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138635

LESIA SYROWATKA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138635 COA: 277336 Washtenaw CC: 05-000203-CK COUNTY OF WASHTENAW, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1314

To amend chapter 1 of title 9 of the United States Code to permit each

party to a sales and service contract to accept or reject arbitration

as a means of settling disputes under the contract.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 11, 1993

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend chapter 1 of title 9 of the United States Code

to permit each party to a sales and service contract

to accept or reject arbitration as a means of settling

disputes under the contract.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This title may be cited as the ‘‘Voluntary Arbitration

5 Act of 1993’’.
2

•HR 1314 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELECTION OF ARBITRATION.

2 (a) SALES AND SERVICE CONTRACTS.—Chapter 1 of

3 title 9 of the United States Code is amended by adding

4 at the end thereof the following new section:

5 ‘‘§ 17. Sales and service contracts

6 ‘‘(a) Whenever a sales and service contract provides

7 for the use of arbitration to resolve a controversy arising

8 out of or relating to the contract, each party to the con9 tract shall have the option, after the controversy arises

10 and before both parties commence an arbitration proceed11 ing, to reject arbitration as the means of settling the

12 controversy. Any such rejection shall be in writing.

13 ‘‘(b) In making an award in any controversy arising

14 out of or relating to a sales and service contract, the arbi15 trator shall provide the parties to the contract with a writ16 ten explanation of the factual and legal basis for the award

17 and any such award may be vacated by a court order as

18 provided in section 10 or whenever the court referred to

19 in section 10 finds that the arbitrator disregarded the law

20 of the State or jurisdiction in which the retailer’s facilities

21 are located.

22 ‘‘(c) For purposes of this section—

23 (1) the term ‘sales and service contract’ means

24 a contract under which any person (including any

25 manufacturer, importer, or distributor) sells any

26 product to any other person for resale to an ultimate
3

•HR 1314 IH

1 purchaser and authorizes such other person to repair

2 and service such product, and

3 (2) the term ‘retailer’ means any person au4 thorized to resell any product to an ultimate pur5 chaser and to repair and service such product under

6 a sales and service contract.’’.

7 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for

8 chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, is amended by

9 adding at the end thereof the following new item:

‘‘17. Sales and service contracts.’’.

10 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

11 The amendments made by section 1 shall apply to

12 contracts entered into, amended, altered, modified, re13 newed, or extended after the date of the enactment of this

14 Act.

Æ
Native Girls in the JuvenileJustice System

Terri Yellowhammer tyellowhammer@edc.org

Native Streams Institute

Education Development Center

564 Federally Recognized Tribes in U.S.

American Indians: high rates of entry in Juvenile Justice System 

http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/display.asp

What this means: AI girls are overrepresented in JJ System

Most tribal members are under the age of 18; 

Wish all jurisdictions would implement a short assessment; could get referrals out instead of waiting for a suicide attempt, e.g.  It’s crazy how our system works.  That’s why I keep pushing to change policies and procedures within the system. Assessments Could be 8-10 questions.  Reason why RB started doing this, felt needed to develop case mgmt plans for kids.  Probation has a lot of authority, but need other partners: CD, MH, Schools, Boys and Girls Club, TANF, all programs providing svcs to youth.  Seemed to help the kids, like a wraparound program for the kids.  

Cultural prax incorp: Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) is a systematic treatment strategy that seeks to decrease recidivism among juvenile and adult criminal offenders by increasing moral reasoning; journaling (VOICES); womanhood ceremonies

2

| Count | Male    | Female | Total   |
|-------|---------|--------|---------|
| 1997  | 90,771  | 14,284 | 105,055 |
| 1999  | 92,985  | 14,508 | 107,493 |
| 2001  | 89,115  | 15,104 | 104,219 |
| 2003  | 81,975  | 14,556 | 96,531  |
| 2006  | 78,998  | 13,723 | 92,721  |
| 2007  | 75,017  | 11,797 | 86,814  |
| 2010  | 61,358  | 9,434  | 70,792  |
| Total | 570,219 | 93,406 | 663,625 |

Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

Year of Census by Sex 

Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). "Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement." Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/

Opportunities for success:

Recognizing challenges: historical trauma, disconnect between agencies within system, relationships

Recognizing strengths: cultural practices being restored/incorporated

Finding that willingness to build relationships

Rocky Boy’s relationship with the state of Montana

4
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

WILLIAM JOSEPH SUMMERVILLE,

tD # 2231539,

Petitioner,

BRYAN COLLIER,

Respondent Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-21 50-C-BT

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation ofthe United

States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Petitioner's claims should be

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for

failure to comply with a Court order. Petitioner failed to file timely objections.

The Court conducts a de novo review ofthose portions ofthe Magistrate Judge's report or

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C.

$ 636(b)(lXC). Portions ofthe report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the

subject of a timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or

contrary to law. See United Stdtes v. llilson,864 F.2d 1219,1221 (5th Cir. 1989).

The Court has conducted an independent review of the Magistrate Judge's findings and

conclusions and finds no error. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Case 3:22-cv-02150-C-BT Document 11 Filed 02/27/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 35
For the reasons stated therein, Petitioner's petition in the above-styled and -numbered

civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED,

t4

Datedthis A7 day of February,2023.

C GS

SEN R STATES D CT JUDGE

2

I

I1-F,]

Case 3:22-cv-02150-C-BT Document 11 Filed 02/27/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 36
### SERVED: JANUARY 24, 2013 1!1!1 ,:,u•J 

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF GOJETAIRLINES, LLC. FAADOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0876 

### HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENthat testimony and evidence will beheard and considered commencing April 9 and 10, 2013 inclusive; U.S. TaxCourt, Courtroom 9.170, Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, 111 South 

### lOth Street, St. Louis,MO. 63102. Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at 4:30p.m: each day. The parties should vacate the courthouse on orbefore 5:00p.m. each day.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachments- Service ListSERVICE LIST FDMS No. FAA-2012-0876 (Civil Penalty Action)

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Mr. Richard A. Leach, CEO GoJet Airlines, LLC,

### Respondent 11495 Navaid Road, Suite 303 Bridgeton, MO 63044 ONE COPY

David J. A. Hayes III, 

### Respondent's Counsel Vice-President & General Counsel
. Trans States Holdings, Inc. 11495 Navaid Road Bridgeton, MO 63044 TEL: 314-222-4316 FAX: 314-222-4311 David B.·Kessler, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office oftheRegional Counsel, ACE-7 Central Region Federal Aviation Administration Room 506, DOTBuilding 901 Locust Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 TEL: 816-329-3763 FAX: 816-329-3771

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. Forservice inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur WrightBuilding-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### 2

### The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, AdministrativeLawJudge 

### U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20, 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 StaffAssistant 202-366-5121 FAJ(: 202-366-7536

3
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SureWest Communications (the “Company”),on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, asthe Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 3, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Steven C. Oldham                                     |
|----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Steven C. Oldham,  President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to SureWest Communications and will be retained by SureWestCommunications and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

The foregoing certificate is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall notbe considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          75,170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,226
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,302,950
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,051,839
<OTHER-SE>                                    (45,180)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,253
<SALES>                                          2,478
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,478
<CGS>                                           32,397
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,008,994
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,038,913)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,038,913)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.010)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.010)


</TABLE>