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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4089

LARRY EUGENE LUCKEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Graham C. Mullen, District Judge.

(CR-96-25-MU)

Submitted: September 22, 1998

Decided: October 19, 1998

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T.

Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian L. Whisler, Assistant United

States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Larry Eugene Luckey appeals his conviction for arson in violation

of 18 U.S.C.A. § 844 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We affirm.

Luckey entered a conditional guilty plea to the charges against him,

reserving his right to contest the validity of a prior confession on the

ground that it was involuntary. The voluntariness of a confession is

a question of law subject to de novo review. See Correll v. Thompson,

63 F.3d 1279, 1290 (4th Cir. 1995). A confession is voluntary if it is

"the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation,

coercion, or deception on the part of the police" which overbore the

will of the accused. Poyner v. Murray, 964 F.2d 1404, 1413 (4th Cir.

1992). In determining whether a defendant's will is overborne, courts

consider the totality of the surrounding circumstances. See

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227 (1973).

Upon consideration of the totality of the attendant circumstances,

we conclude that the Government demonstrated the voluntariness of

Luckey's confession by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lego v.

Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 489 (1972) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm Luckey's conviction. 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.

AFFIRMED

 2
Exhibit 99.35

News
Release
November 1, 2000

Trading Symbols:TRBD (EASDAQ)

TURBODYNE ANNOUNCES CHANGES TO THE BOARD  OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT

Carpinteria, CaliforniaNovember 1, 2000Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.
(EASDAQ: TRBD) announces the resignations of two members of the Board of Directors and the moves of two members of management.

Turbodyne
Technologies, Inc. announces the resignations of Director Peter Kitzinski and Director Robert F. Taylor. The Board of Directors elected Gerhard Delf to a Board
membership, and re-elected him as Chief Executive Officer and President of Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. Dr.-Ing. Friedrich Goes resigned as Chief Executive Officer and
President of Turbodyne Technologies, Inc., and was elected President of Turbodyne Europe.

Two Directors Resign

Robert F. Taylor has been a Director of Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. since 1996. He served as Chief Operating Officer from January 1997 to
June 1997. Mr. Taylor cited the September 30, 2000 Board and management elections as setting the stage for the future of the Company, and he believes it is time for him to retire.

Mr. Peter
Kitzinski has been a Director of Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. since May 1999. He served as Vice President Corporate Finance Europe of Turbodyne
Technologies, Inc. and as General Manager of Turbodyne Europe GmbH from 1997 until July 2000.

Mr. Kitzinski
resigned his Directorship in order to devote full time to a new position in the investment banking industry.

Resignation and Election of President and Chief Executive Officer

Dr. Friedrich Goes resigned as Chief Executive Officer and President of Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. He was elected to that position on
September 30, 2000. Dr. Goes resigned citing his inability to fulfill his duties as CEO and President while continuing to live in Germany. Dr. Goes was subsequently elected to the
position of President of Turbodyne Europe.

Mr. Gerhard
Delf was elected to the Board of Directors on October 26, 2000. Subsequent to his election as a Director, Mr. Delf was re-elected to the
position of Chief Executive Officer and President of Turbodyne Technologies from which he had resigned on September 30, 2000. Mr. Delf joined Turbodyne Technologies in 1998. He
previously held the position of Chief Executive Officer and President for the Company from October 22, 1999, to October 14, 2000.

Turbodyne
Technologies, Inc., a California based high technology company, specializes in the development of charging technology for internal combustion engines and the
development and manufacturing of high-tech assemblies for electrically assisted turbochargers and superchargers. Turbodyne Technologies' headquarters is located in Carpinteria, California,
and its European office is located in Frankfurt, Germany.

Contacts:

Kenneth
FitzpatrickInvestor Relations at California Headquarters: (800) 566-1130
Markus KumbrinkInvestor Relations at Frankfurt office: +49-69-69-76-73-13

---

QuickLinks
RICO JUHWAN HUDSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4809

Opinion filed November 9, 2016.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Rico Juhwan Hudson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits.

WOLF, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Smalley vs. Ericson

Justice’s Cotort. (1) *Judgment on appeal under see.*218, *eh.*120, *B. S., must be for affirmance or reversal.*(2) *Bemittiturwitt not cure judgment defective in this respect.*

1. On appeal from, a justice of the peace, in a case coming under sec. 218, ch. 120, B. S., the circuit court can only affirm or reverse the judgment of the justice; and a judgment *de novo*on the merits is erroneous.

2. *It seems*that a *remittitur*hy plaintiff of the damages adjudged to him by the circuit court, would not cure the error, even if filed before appeal taken from the judgment of that court; but in this case the *remittitu/r*was not filed until *after*appeal taken.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Manitowoc*County.

This action was commenced in justice’s court, where trial was bad, and judgment rendered in favor of the defendant for $12 damages, and the costs of suit. The plaintiff appealed to the circuit court; where, upon trial on the return of the justice, the judgment below was reversed, and, in addition, plaintiff was adjudged to recover of the defendant $12.64 damages, and $37.36 costs. From this judgment defendant appealed.

*H. G. & W. J.*Turner, for appellant:

The judgment of the justice being for an amount less than $15, the circuit court, upon appeal, can only affirm or reverse it, as upon a common law certiorari, and can not give judgment upon the merits. Tay. Stats., 1399, § 236; *Mode v. Erdmann,*28 Wis., 115; *Carney v.*Doyle, 14 id., 270 ; *Sioppenbach v. Zohr-laut,*21 id., 385; *Detling v.*Weber, 29 id., 559 ; *Phillips v. Gees-land,*1 Chand., 57 ; *Dykens v. Munson,*2 Wis., 245 ; *Persons, Adm’r, v. Burdick,*6 id., 63 ; *Pfeil v. Harboldt,*11 id., 10 ; *Fairbanks v. Corlies,*1 Abb. Pr., 150 ; *Moak v. Poland,*3 How. Pr., 84 ; *Kasson v. Mills,*8 id., 377 ; *Martin v. Beckwith,*4 Wis., 219.

*P. J. Smalley,*for respondent,

argued that the judgment of reversal was correct, and, to cure the error of the circuit court in awarding damages to the plaintiff, relied upon a *remittitur,*
      *303which, seems to have been filed after appeal taken. *McCoy v. Quick,*30 Wis., 521.

Ryan, C. J.

The appeal to the circuit court from the justice was governed by sec. 218, ch. 120, R. S.

The rule is well settled, that on such appeals the circuit court can only affirm or reverse the judgment, and cannot render any other judgment, except for costs of the appeal. *Dykens v. Munson,*2 Wis., 245; *Carney v. Doyle,*14 id., 270; *Stoppenbach v. Zohrlaut,*21 id., 385; *Detling v. Weber,*29 id., 559.

The judgment of the circuit court in this case, *de novo,*on the merits, is therefore erroneous.

It is claimed by the respondent, however, that the error of the judgment is cured by a *remittitur*of the damages adjudged to him by the circuit court. If filed in time, we do not think that the *remittitur*could have that effect. But we need not discuss the question, for the *remittitur*was not filed until after this appeal had been taken.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded for judgment in conformity with this opinion.
[Civ. No. 9698.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

June 4, 1934.]

#### CITIZENS NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS BANK OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent, v. EDWIN A. MESERVE et al., Defendants; MARGUERITE MALONEY MAYO, Appellant. CITIZENS NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS BANK OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent, v. EDWIN A. MESERVE et al., Defendants; G. C. De GARMO, Appellant.

[Civ. No. 9648.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

June 4, 1934.]

*90G. C. De Garmo, *in pro. per.,*W. M. Crane, Hiram E. Casey, and Meserve, Mumper, Hughes & Robertson for Appellants.

No appearance for Respondent.

STEPHENS, P. J.

On petition to have bill of exceptions settled in accordance with facts.

This opinion and ruling covers two petitions to change the bill of exceptions under section 652 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The above-entitled case is on appeal to this court and defendants-appellants Marguerite Maloney Mayo and G. C. De Garmo substituted for Julia B. Burns by separate petitions request this court to proceed under section 652 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and change the bill of exceptions so as to show that the findings of fact and conclusions of law were not served on defendants according to the requirements of section 634 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in fact were never served on defendants at all. Sa,id defendants have regularly requested the trial judge to make such change, but he has refused so to do.

The petitions are denied for the reason that section 634 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring the service of findings of fact and conclusions of law, is directory *(Hammond Lumber Co.*v. *Henry,*87 Cal. App. 231 [261 Pac. 1027]; *Manfre*v. *Sharp,*210 Cal. 479 [292 Pac. 465]; *Lorraine*v. *McComb,*220 Cal. 753 [32 Pac. (2d) 960]).

Desmond, J., and Archbald, J., *pro tern.,*concurred.

*91A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on July 2, 1934, and an application by petitioner to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on August 2, 1934.

Shenk, J., dissented.
<PAGE>

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


       KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints Robert E. Sulentic, Derek R. McClain and William P. Leiser the
true and lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his
behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell
Crow Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999, and to sign
any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all
exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney or
attorney-in-fact, each of them with or without the others, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming
all that said attorney or attorneys-in-fact or any of them or their substitute
or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



                                        /s/ George L. Lippe
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       George L. Lippe
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

November 28, 2016 Session

IN RE CANNON B.

Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Loudon County

No. 2015-JV-480 Henry E. Sledge, Judge

No. E2016-01826-COA-R3-PT

This is an appeal by the appellant, Abigail T., from an order terminating her parental rights 

to her minor child. The order terminating the appellant’s parental rights was entered on 

July 19, 2016. The Notice of Appeal was not filed until August 19, 2016, more than thirty 

(30) days from the date of entry of the final order. The Attorney General, on behalf of the 

appellee, Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, has filed a motion to dismiss this 

appeal based upon the untimely filing of the Notice of Appeal. Because the record 

confirms that the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal and grant the motion to dismiss. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

JOHN W. MCCLARTY, CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., AND THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, JJ.

Andrew E. Pate, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Abigail T.

Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter, and W. Derek Green, Assistant 

Attorney General, General Civil Division, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, 

Tennessee Department of Children’s Services.

Tara A. Henderlight, Knoxville, Tennessee, Guardian Ad Litem.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

 

1Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals provides as follows:

This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, 

may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by 

memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no 

precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it 

shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be 

published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any 

unrelated case.

11/30/2016
A notice of appeal must “be filed with and received by the clerk of the trial court 

within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment appealed from.” Tenn. R. App. P. 

4(a). “The thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is mandatory and 

jurisdictional in civil cases.” Albert v. Frye, 145 S.W.3d 526, 528 (Tenn. 2004). The 

appellant has filed no response to the motion to dismiss and both the record and the 

certified copy of the final order attached to the motion confirms that the date of entry of the 

final order was July 19, 2016. 

Because the Notice of Appeal in this case was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction 

to consider this appeal. The motion to dismiss is granted with regard to the argument that 

the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed and this appeal is dismissed. As such, we need 

not address the additional argument raised in the motion that the Notice of Appeal did not 

comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-124(d), which states: “Any notice 

of appeal filed in a termination of parental rights action shall be signed by the appellant.” 

Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant, for which execution may issue if necessary. 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certification of CEO/Treasurer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Southeastern Banking Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Cornelius P. Holland, III, President & CEO of the Company, and Alyson G. Beasley, Vice President & Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ CORNELIUS P. HOLLAND, IIICornelius P. Holland, III, President & CEO/s/ ALYSON G. BEASLEYAlyson G. Beasley, Vice President & Treasurer


Date: May 26, 2010
S. 2771 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two 

An Act 

To designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs in San Angelo, Texas, as the ‘‘Colonel Charles and JoAnne Powell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) Colonel Charles Powell and his wife, Mrs. JoAnne 

Powell, served the community of San Angelo, Texas, with character and dignity. 

(2) Colonel Powell served as the base commander of Goodfellow Air Force Base from 1980 to 1984. 

(3) When the Powells moved to San Angelo, Charles was 

ordered to help Goodfellow avoid closure and the displacement 

of many members of the Armed Forces from the community 

they had grown to love. 

(4) The impact of Charles’ career can still be felt today 

at Goodfellow Air Force Base, as it serves as a training school 

for thousands of members from every Armed Force to train 

in cryptology, intelligence, and firefighting. 

(5) JoAnne assisted thousands of constituents in the district 

offices of Representatives Tom Loeffler, Lamar Smith, K. 

Michael Conaway, and August Pfluger. 

(6) One of the several duties JoAnne spearheaded was 

the annual process of nominations to the military service academies, which was always a year-round process for her. 

(7) With JoAnne’s assistance, many of the young men and 

women of the 11th congressional district of Texas went on 

to serve the United States and attend one of the military 

service academies. 

(8) In addition, JoAnne was a fierce advocate of veterans 

and helped thousands of individuals gain access to the veterans 

benefits they rightfully earned. 

(9) JoAnne’s compassion and dedication helped make the 

Concho Valley a better place. 

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC OF 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS IN SAN ANGELO, 

TEXAS. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The community-based outpatient clinic of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs in San Angelo, Texas, shall 

after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated 

as the ‘‘Colonel Charles and JoAnne Powell Department of Veterans 
S. 2771—2 

Affairs Clinic’’ or the ‘‘Colonel Charles and JoAnne Powell VA 

Clinic’’. 

(b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the community-based outpatient clinic referred to in subsection (a) shall be 

considered to be a reference to the Colonel Charles and JoAnne 

Powell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2306

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Jerome Franklin Deering, Bey, also known as Nicholas Lavern Williams

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________ Submitted: February 1, 2021 Filed: February 4, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Jerome Deering Bey appeals the district court’s 1 rulings denying his motion seeking a reduction to the length of his prison sentence under the First Step Act, and

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Because Deering Bey was released from custody during the pendency of this appeal, his challenges to the district court’s orders have become moot. See Owen v. United States, 930 F.3d 989, 989-90 (8th Cir. 2019). The appeal is therefore dismissed.

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Consolidated CapitalInstitutional Properties, LP (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chiefexecutive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalentof the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.