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

Appeal by the defendant *518from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.), rendered July 7, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon his plea, of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that he was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel is based largely on facts dehors the record. Insofar as we are able to review his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find that defense counsel’s performance amply met the standard of meaningful representation *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### GOODRICH v. JASPER STATE BANK.

No. 3524.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Sept. 28, 1939.

Synnott & Smith, of Jasper, for appellant.

Richardson & Lanier, of Jasper, for ap-pellee.

COMBS, Justice.

This is the second appeal of this case. The facts and issues are the same in all material respects as on the former appeal and we refer to the opinion of Chief Justice Walker reported as Jasper State Bank v. Goodrich, Tex.Civ.App., 107 S.W.2d 600, for a full statement of the case. It is only necessary to state here that the suit by the bank was on a promissory note and foreclosure of a deed of trust lien on an undivided interest of 2935⁄8 acres of land out of a 440-acre tract. On the first trial, the trial court gave judgment for the bank for its debt but refused to foreclose the lien on the ground that the description of the land covered by the deed of trust was fatally defective. We held the description sufficient when aided by other proof which was offered by the bank but excluded and remanded the case, suggesting an amendment of plaintiff’s petition. On the present *147trial our holdings were followed, the judgment being in favor of the bank for its debt and foreclosure of the deed of trust lien. The defendant" Goodrich has appealed.

Opinion

All assignments of appellant raise legal questions which were decided by this court on the former appeal, with the exception of the single proposition which we will discuss below. We are fully satisfied that our former holdings were correct and so overrule all assignments raising those questions without further discussion.

One new matter is presented. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting introduction of the testimony of defendant on cross examination wherein he stated he owned an undivided two-thirds interest in the 440-acre tract and that he intended the deed of trust to cover what he owned in the tract. Appellant’s contention is that only written evidence, the records and muniments of title, was admissible to show what land the defendant owned and that admission of oral testimony was in violation of the statute of frauds. Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 3995. The contention is overruled. This suit does not involve the question of defendant’s title, but merely the matter of what land he meant to describe in the deed of trust. Under the facts, his oral testimony as to what land he claimed in the 440-acre tract in question at the time the deed of trust was executed was admissible on that issue, in aid of the written description set forth in the instrument.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 79

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 9 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

Received

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating the week beginning on November 21, 1993, and

November 20, 1994, as ‘‘National Family Week’’.

Whereas the family is the basic strength of any free and

orderly society;

Whereas it is appropriate to honor the family as a unit essential to the continued well-being of the United States; and

Whereas it is fitting that official recognition be given to the

importance of family loyalties and ties: Now, therefore,

be it
2

HJ 79 RDS

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the President is hereby authorized and requested to

4 issue a proclamation designating the week beginning on

5 November 21, 1993, and November 20, 1994 as ‘‘National

6 Family Week’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 8,

1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70892-70893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30199]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-92-000]


Norteno Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 21, 2000.
    Take notice that on November f9, 2000, Norteno Pipeline Company, 
(Norteno) tendered for filing its' Statement of Compliance with the 
Commission in response to Order No. 587-L informing the Commission that 
Norteno's currently effective gas tariff contains provisions permitting 
imbalance netting and trading by shippers.
    Norteno states that copies of this filing have been sent to 
Norteno's shippers and interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before November 28, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-298-2222 for 
assistance). Comments and protests may

[[Page 70893]]

be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30199 Filed 11-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Getty Refining and Marketing, Appellant, v Linden Maintenance Corporation, Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover money had and received, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated June 7, 1989, as, upon renewal, denied its motion for summary judgment.

*481Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

By written contract which sets forth that it contains all the terms of the parties’ agreement and that any oral condition or understanding additional to or at variance with the terms is "void”, the defendant, operator of a fleet of taxi cabs, agreed to purchase, for a period of approximately four years, bulk quantities of gasoline and oil from the plaintiff at prices posted by the plaintiff at the time of delivery. By separate letter, the plaintiff advised the defendant that "until further notice” it would allow a 21⁄2-cent per gallon discount of the purchase price of gasoline on deliveries of 3,000 gallons or more. The plaintiff stated in the letter that the letter was not intended as an amendment to the contract but was solely a "voluntary price allowance on our part to meet competitive conditions”, that the discount could be revoked at any time, and that if the discount were revoked, the defendant had a 10-day option to terminate the contract.

For reasons that are not set forth in the record, the plaintiff and defendant severed their contractual relationship prior to the expiration of the contract period. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover some $48,000 in payments it made to the defendant which it asserts constituted a mistaken duplication of the 21⁄2-cent discount already reflected on invoices for payments the defendant owed the plaintiff. In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, defendant’s president asserted that after the making of the agreement, and to remain competitive with a price quote the defendant received from another oil company, the plaintiff afforded the defendant an additional 21⁄2-cent discount and thus immediately began issuing checks to the defendant pursuant to that subsequent understanding.

Neither the parol evidence rule nor the merger clause of the underlying contract prohibits proof of a subsequent additional agreement or of a subsequent modification of the original agreement *(see, e.g., Depot Constr. Co. v State of New York,*120 AD2d 913; *cf., Katz v American Tech. Indus.,*96 AD2d 932). Since sharp questions of fact exist as to what the payments the plaintiff seeks to recover actually represent, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff summary judgment *(see,*CPLR 3212). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIAN QIN CHEN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71182

Agency No. A098-452-282

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. 

Jian Qin Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence,

FILED

JUL 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-71182

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), we deny the petition for

review.

Chen does not challenge the agency’s finding that she failed to demonstrate

past persecution, but she fears returning to China because of an affiliation with

Falun Gong. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Chen lacks a

well-founded fear of future persecution. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,

481 n.1 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not

only supports that conclusion, but compels it . . . .”); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333

F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative). 

Accordingly, Chen’s asylum claim fails.

Because Chen failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows

that she has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye

v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6427

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALFRED GREEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR98-478-CCB, CA-00-1355-CCB) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred Green, Appellant Pro Se. Donna Carol Sanger, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Alfred Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Green , Nos. CR-98-478-CCB; CA-00- 1355-CCB (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 99

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


               The  undersigned  chief  executive  officer  and chief  financial
officer  of the  Registrant  hereby  certify  that,  to  their  knowledge,  this
Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ended  March 31,  2003 (the
"Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  and the  information  contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.


                     By:  /s/ Betty J.Long
                          ----------------------------------------------
                          Name:    Betty J. Long
                          Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer



                     By:  /s/ Robbie Cox
                          ----------------------------------------------
                          Name:    Robbie Cox
                          Title:   Principal Accounting Officer


Date: May 14, 2003
#### DAVIS v. WILLIAMS.

No. 25323.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 29, 1941.

G. S. Arnold, of Robert Lee, and Upton, Upton & Baker, of San Angelo, for plaintiff in error.

W. A. Wright and D. I. Durham, both of San Angelo, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before this Court on application for writ of error. The matters presented to this Court by the application involve only questions of the admissibility of evidence. The evidence involved does not necessarily control the case. The jurisdiction of this Court is therefore not legally invoked. The application for writ of error is “Dismissed W. O. J.,” meaning this Court is without jurisdiction. Merchants’ Cotton Oil Co., Inc., v. Acme Gin Co., 121 Tex. 91, 42 S.W.2d 777; Browder v. Memphis Independent School District, 107 Tex. 535, 180 S.W. 1077.
| 1.                      | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the yearended September 30, 2019 of cbdMD, Inc.; and                                                                                                                                                                                             |                                                                                           |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.                      | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report. |                                                                                           |   |
|                    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |                                                                                           |
| Dated: January 24, 2020 |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | /s/ R. ScottCoffmanR. Scott Coffman, co-Chief Executive Officer, co-principalexecutive officer |
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30614]



[[Page 75293]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Availability of Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Summary for 
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Cayuga, ND

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service has published the Tewaukon National Wildlife 
Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Summary. This Plan describes 
how the FWS intends to manage the Tewaukon Complex for the next 10-15 
years.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Plan may be obtained by writing to U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge, 9754 143\1/2\ 
Avenue SW., Cayuga ND 58013; or download from http://www.r6.fws.gov/larp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Banks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, P.O. Box 25486 DFC, Denver, CO 80225, 303/236-8145 extension 
626; fax 303/236-4792.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tewaukon NWR Complex is located in southeast 
North Dakota. Implementation of the Plan will focus on adaptive 
resource management of glaciated prairie wetlands, tall and mixed-grass 
prairie grasslands, riparian woodlands, and opportunities for wildlife-
dependent recreation. Habitat monitoring and evaluation will be 
emphasized as the Plan is implemented. Opportunities for compatible 
wildlife-dependent recreation will continue to be provided.

    Dated: November 27, 2000.
Elliott Sutta,
Regional Director, Denver, Colorado.
[FR Doc. 00-30614 Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
#### Albert KERSTEN et ux., Appellants v. FARMERS ROYALTY HOLDING COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 11169.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

April 3, 1941.

Glenn & Hill, of Sealy, for appellants.

Dudley, Hyde, Duvall & Dudley, of Oklahoma City, Old., and Hollis Massey, of Schulenburg, for appellees.

CODY, Justice.

This is a companion case to Willie Ashorn et ux., Appellants, v. Farmers Royalty Holding Company et al., Appellees, 149 S. W.2d 995, opinion in which is this day handed down affirming the judgment of the trial court therein.

The record in this case parallels that of the Ashorn in every respect and the briefs filed herein are virtual copies of the briefs filed in the Ashorn case.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed upon the same grounds set forth in the opinion in the Ashorn case.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 23, 2012 

d0416 

Order 

 

April 23, 2012 

144236 

KEVIN AGEE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 144236 

 COA: 300094 

Court of Claims: 10-000035-MD 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 10, 2011 

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. 

 CAVANAGH and HATHAWAY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
U.S. flag
      An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.
        Here's how you know
      Here's how you know**Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
      **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** (
            A locked padlock
            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Menu

      
        close

            
            
                                              About
          Charter
          Legislation
          Members
          Meetings
          Reports & Resources

                            
                                About
          Contact Us
                  Share
FacebookXLinkedInRedditPinterestEmail Home
 Randy Turner
Director, Tarrant County Juvenile Services
Stephen "Randy" Turner has been involved in the field of juvenile justice and/or youth services for over 40 years. He has dedicated his service to the youth and adults of Texas, Colorado, and Oklahoma serving in both the public and private sectors. He has worked with youth involved in the JJS in secure institutional settings, in residential treatment, and in community-based services. Currently serving as the Chief JPO in Tarrant County, TX, Turner has served in various leadership/committee roles in several professional organizations, including the Texas Correctional Association, Colorado Juvenile Council, Juvenile Justice Association of Texas, and American Correctional Association. He has served as a Commissioner for the Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth representing the Juvenile Bureaus in the State of Oklahoma. Turner has also served as an adjunct professor at the University of Texas at Dallas and the University of Central Oklahoma.
  
Date Created: July 10, 2020
 Top

      Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

        
        
                        Facebook
          
                      X
          
                      YouTube
  

      Secondary Footer link menu
            Accessibility
              Plain Language
              Privacy Policy
              Legal Policies and Disclaimer
              No FEAR Act
              Freedom of Information Act
              USA.gov
              Justice.gov