alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

July 23, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

 AT NASHVILLE

 JULY 1998 SESSION

 

CARL LONDON, ) 

) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9710-CR-00458

Appellant, )

) Davidson County

V. )

) Honorable J. Randall Wyatt, Jr., Judge

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) 

) (Post-Conviction)

Appellee. ) 

)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Carl London, Pro Se John Knox Walkup

TDOC # 122534 Attorney General & Reporter 

Lake County Regional

Correctional Facility Elizabeth B. Marney

Route 1, Box 330 Assistant Attorney General

Tiptonville, TN 38079 425 Fifth Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Victor S. Johnson, III

District Attorney General

Lila Statom

Dan Hamm

Assistant District Attorneys General

Washington Square, Suite 500

222 Second Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37201-1649

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED--RULE 20

PAUL G. SUMMERS,

Judge

O P I N I O N
-2-

The appellant, Carl London, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. 

In January 1992, the appellant pled guilty to one count of aggravated rape and

received a twenty-three-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of

Correction. On January 17, 1997, the appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, and on February 5, 1997, the trial court dismissed the petition. 

The court held that the petition was filed outside the statute of limitations, and

the appellant’s challenge to his sentence calculation was not a cognizable claim

for post-conviction relief.

The appellant’s primary issue for review then is whether the trial court

properly denied his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

The appellant contends that the post-conviction court erred by dismissing

his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that his guilty plea was

involuntarily entered, that his attorney provided ineffective assistance, and that

the state breached its plea agreement with him regarding his sentence.

The state argues that the post-conviction court properly dismissed the

appellant’s petition. The state contends that because the appellant’s conviction

became final in January 1992, his filing of a post-conviction petition on January

17, 1997, which was almost five years after his conviction, was time barred. 

Also, the state asserts that the appellant’s challenge to his sentence calculation

is not a cognizable claim for post-conviction relief.

We agree with the court’s determination that the appellant’s petition was

time barred and did not state a cognizable claim for relief. Therefore, we affirm

the denial of the petition pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of

Criminal Appeals.

_______________________
-3-

PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

CONCUR:

_____________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, Judge

_____________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, Judge
REF ID:A62453 

Mr. John c. llc'Pberaon 

>.5 Iakev1ev Avenue 

Short Hilla, Bev Jersey 

Dear Johnt 

J.6 June 1955 

I 'WU veey much pleased to receive your personal note 

written laat 8w:id8i1 and vish to thanlt you ror your good v18hea. 

1'Y all neens please try to ave a little t!me for a 

v11it the mxt chance ;you pt tor it W'OUld be very nice 

to have a cbat. I. - anx1ous to discu.as a atter concern11.J& Board activities v11;1:i you which m.tter was initiated, 

l UDderstam., at the last meeting. 

I enj019d ree.ding '1'ohnny von !leumann•s article in 

the current "Portune 11 -aasine and think. tha.t I am. going 

to ask him to autosraph JIW" copy. 

With best regards,, I am, 

Sincerely, 

WILLIAM F. JRIEIIWf 

P.S. I am aldng good progress and am baing very caretul. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 06-17-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

------ ~ - -- ---

i 

: 

-, 

.. 

' 

-

~ 

'
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000351532
<NAME> INTERFERON SCIENCES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,796,552
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  301,822
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,222,085
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,400,090
<PP&E>                                      13,703,452
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,914,038
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,586,371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,785,536
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       160,996
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,639,839
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,586,371
<SALES>                                      1,186,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,186,726
<CGS>                                        3,945,041
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,945,041
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,867,026
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (16,122,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (16,122,100)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (16,122,100)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.05)
        

</TABLE>
REF ID:A63644 

llr. t. Ronald lknebr1dp 

Maw.pr 

CMbrid&e UA1ftn1ty Pft•• ,. J:ut 57th Street 

Jfev York 22, Jin' York 

Xlea:' Mr~ •:c•br1d&et 

Xt boa occu.rred to ws tbe.t U& v.ie\r ar tlw ta.ct tbe.t 

our anuacr1pt deal.e 'ri.tb a l"&tbel:' un:uaua.l. and otten quite 

eompl• technical. .ubJect we llboul4 bani Mm"t you •'Oil£ with 

tbe •nuecr1pt at 1-#t •modicum or 1J:lf'onation about our 

trxperience 1!l tho cr;yptol.cg1<: ti.id_, tbat you u4 tbo 

~or ti. lditorlal loard ot the Cuibridp 'thtwra1'ty 

to 

trea1 

uee•• 

re;'/ 

tho 

fora 

~as1c 

IJOl9lt Judptnt 

1'8lldity 

.,. to our 

or tb8 

tecbn1Q&l 

-.r1oua ~ attem,pta 

~ 

to p:ove IQ.l.-Sbakeapearee.u authorsll1p of the P.le;r9 vbich 

•cbolara ~ lMre wr1tten b7 VUHam Sbakeapeare. 

n u ~ llOt t.oo late to aeJld 1(n.1 the inclo&ed 

Oata. I ebould add tbat UM ot 11\lCh 4ata llO tar a.a COACerna 

- ... not ,et been Ct~ vith 2Q" -~'t .. but tbie 

•tter eu be tuitn up at a later date in cue oux-· ~cript 

1• found acce~ .. 

hc1t 

a/• 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 06-19-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 198 ) ll-K-(I)-1 1 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:55 AM Sheet 198of 325P. 2 

# IT M

n _K-(I)-l l COAL CONVERSIO N

PROGRAM . ENERG Y SUPPL Y AN D ENIVORNMENTA L COORDINATIO N ACT . SECTIO N

2 , VOLUM E 1 . Federa l Energ y

Administration . Ma y 1977 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)-1 1
Ill!. J. z. ltlllar 

lkltern 

60 Budaon 

Ucdon 

atreet 

!el.earaph ~ 

- !ark 131 lew York 

.,_. Jer., IUJ.lart 

!!he D1reetor ha.a intoned - that JOU have accepted h1a 

mltation to be a mdber ot tbe lel.eca:nun1catiozia hnel of the 

lf.t1onal 

~ 

!ecurity ~ Sc1.entUic At1Ti8oQ' Jloard, A9 beeut.iw 

ot tbe Jlciud1 l Nb to Gpl'eU tbe ilirectar'e pat1ti• 

•t1on1 u wU u 'lllff peno.ne..1 t.huiks1 tar 1'CftlZ' naq ~tm:IJ:e, 

•l»CO lt s.. t..uea.'t1ve or JOtJr tnteren 1A u4. ~ utinate of 

tt. ~ ot the problea vi.th which • .-t contend tn the 

J.nteJ'eat ot the mt1oael. 4efeuae. 

!be next IMtiDS o'l tbs A4v1lar7 Jou4 S.teelt v1ll. be t.ld. 

~1!19 th1e aprl.Dg. At that t.be 1' la illtende'1 t!at a "POJ't 

co tbe pae1 ~ vUl be 9\lb-rd.tted to tbo i.r.i, toptbel" 

with IOIWt problems tbu.t cu be nhrred tar epectfic puiel .et1on .. 

8'&baequent to th1a loaJ'd ..ti:lg, 'Ule pt.Del cl:a1rr;en, 1lbo .. al.80 

atdc• ot tbe bra, VS.U 'be &bl.a to coater with 70U • m;ttere 

of J&'Qel or;an11aticrn alM\ Mure Mt1v1t1ea. 

cc: AG 

c/s 8/ ASS'J! {Mr. Friedmn) 

81ncere]¥, 

M/R: Acknowle<lgment at Mr. Millar' a acceptance ot the Director• a 

invitation to be a member or the BSASA'B's Telecommunications Panel. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-25-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

-------- -~ -~ ---~----..-.....~=----~ ----~----- - .... lliiiiiiilllll-.--.;.;;~~=====:=-===-~
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2185

___________________________

Ronald Wayne Morton, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

____________

 Submitted: March 18, 2015

Filed: March 23, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Ronald Wayne Morton, Jr., appeals the district court’s order upholding the

1

denial of supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. We find

that substantial evidence, including evidence the Appeals Council considered,

supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) decision. See Van Vickle v. Astrue,

539 F.3d 825, 828 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2008). As to the issues Morton raises on appeal,

we conclude that he failed to meet his burden of establishing that his anxiety,

depression, or knee problems were severe impairments. See Kirby v. Astrue, 500

F.3d 705, 707-08 (8th Cir. 2007) (if impairment has no more than minimal effect on

claimant’s ability to work, it does not qualify as severe). We also find no merit to

Morton’s assertion that the ALJ failed to develop the record on his mental

impairments and his knee and shoulder problems. See McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d

605, 612 (8th Cir. 2011) (ALJ has duty to develop record, but duty is not neverending and ALJ is not required to disprove every possible impairment; ALJ is

required to order medical tests and examinations only if medical records presented

to him do not give sufficient medical evidence to determine if claimant is disabled). 

Finally, we disagree with Morton’s assertions that vocational expert testimony was

required due to nonexertional limitations related to his depression, anxiety, and knee

problems. See Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 996 (8th Cir. 2005) (where

nonexertional impairments do not significantly limit or diminish claimant’s residual

functional capacity to perform full range of activities listed in Medical-Vocational

Guidelines, Commissioner may consult Guidelines to determine if claimant can make

adjustment to other work). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Missouri.

-2-
NSA Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Complaints Data

Posted Pursuant to the No Fear Act

I. Complaints of Discrimination Filed

Number of Complaints Filed

Number of Individuals Filing Complaints

Number of Individuals Filing Two or More Complaints

II. Bases of Complaints Filed

Age

Color

Disability

oo | |

National Origin

Race

Religion

Reprisal

Sex

1. Equal Pay Act

2. Pregnancy Discrimination Act

Sclolajofrlol—

III. Issues of Complaints Filed

Assignment of Duties

Awards

Disciplinary Action

Warning

Removal

Duty Hours

Evaluation/Appraisal

Examination/Test

Harassment (Sexual)

_ (Non-Sexual)

Promotion/Non-selection

Reasonable Accommodation

Reassignment - Denied

Termination

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Time and Attendance

Training

olvl—lale|rlulelole|wlol—lulalo]—

IV. Average Complaints Processing Time to Completion

All Investigations

273

1. Hearing Not Requested

297

2. Hearing Requested

158



Final Actions by Agency

1. Processing Time Without a Hearing/FAD _ 59
2. Processing Time With a Hearing/Final Order 26
V. Dismissals
Number of Dismissals 8
Average Days Pending At the Time of Dismissal 144
VI. Withdrawals
Number of Complaints Withdrawn by Complainants 1
VIL. Findings of Discrimination
Findings Rendered with a Hearing
Number of Findings 0
Findings Rendered without a Hearing
Number of Findings 0
Issues of Findings of Discrimination
Number of Issues 0
Bases of Findings of Discrimination
Number of Bases 0

VIII. Pending Complaints Carried Over From Previous FYs

Complaints Open Any Length of Time During Reporting Year

__|. Number of Individuals Filing These Complaints

2. Number of These Complaints Currently Pending

Status of These Cases:

_I. Investigation 17
2. Final Agency Action 4
3. Hearing 19
4. Appeal 4. |

IX. Complaints Pending Any Length of Time This Fiscal Year Not
Investigated Within 180 Days (plus any authorized extensions)
**Exhibit 32**

**Certification   Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act  of  2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) the undersigned Managing General Partner of Detonics Small Arms Limited, a Washington limited partnership (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of such General Partner's knowledge and belief, that: 

 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the "Form 10-Q) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ MICHEL E. MAES                       Michel E. Maes   Managing General Partner Date: 5-7-10 

 

----
Table of Contents

**Exhibit 13.1**

 

 

Compañía Cervecerías Unidas S.A.

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

 

 

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as follows:

 

1.         I am the Chief Executive Officer of Compañía Cervecerías Unidas S.A. (the “Company”).

 

2.         The Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”); and

 

3.         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: June 11, 2010

 

 

                                                                                  /s/ Patricio Jottar        

                                                                                  Chief Executive Officer

 

 

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40936 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant, TERESA MENDIOLA, Claimant-Appellant,

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-97-CV-283

- - - - - - - - - - August 22, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Teresa Mendiola appeals from a jury’s finding that she knew of and consented to drug trafficking activity on her property. In accordance with the jury’s finding on this subject, the district court ordered the forfeiture of Mendiola’s property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). Mendiola argues that the district court abused its discretion when it did not include theNo. 99-40936 -2- requirement of actual knowledge in the jury verdict form as requested by her. In her notice of appeal, Mendiola indicated that she was seeking review from the district court’s denial of her motion for a new trial, but she did not designate the underlying judgment for appeal. Nevertheless, the Government addressed the underlying judgment in its brief and was not prejudiced by Mendiola’s failure to comply strictly with Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). See Turnbull v. United States , 929 F.2d 173, 176- 77 (5th Cir. 1991). Although not included in the written verdict form, the district court orally instructed the jury that it must find actual as opposed to constructive knowledge. See United States v. Jones , 132 F.3d 232, 245 (5th Cir. 1998). Likewise, Mendiola’s attorney emphasized to the jury during closing argument that the knowledge must be actual rather than constructive. See Bernard v. IBP, Inc. of Nebraska , 154 F.3d 259, 265 (5th Cir. 1998); Consolidated Cigar Co. v. Texas Commerce Bank , 749 F.2d 1169, 1173 (5th Cir. 1985). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mendiola’s request that the term “actual knowledge” be included in the verdict form. See McCoy v. Hernandez , 203 F.3d 371, 375 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
      32





Certification
      Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
      1350)




Persuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) the
      undersigned General Partners of TASA Products Limited, a Washington limited
      partnership (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of such General
      Partner's knowledge and belief, that:





1.     The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the "Form
      10-Q) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company.








/s/
      MICHEL E. MAES


Michel
      E.
      Maes


Managing
      General Partner


Date:
      7-26-07