alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert QUAGLIATO, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Andrew QUALIATO, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 14796, 14797.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

March 23, 1965.

Certiorari Denied June 1, 1965.

See 85 S.Ct. 1771.

Sidney S. Altman, Chicago, 111., for appellant.

Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., James J. Casey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, 111., John Peter Lulinski, John Powers Crowley, Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel, for appellee.

Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and ENOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants Robert Quagliato and Victor Qualiato, together with one John Ip-polito, were jointly indicted by the grand jury for having in their possession certain goods and chattels of a value in excess of $100, knowing them to have been stolen from a motor truck while being shipped in interstate commerce, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 659.

Ippolito was adjudged guilty of the substantive offense charged in the indictment following his plea of guilty thereto. He is not a party to this appeal.

Quagliato and Qualiato entered a plea of not guilty. Following a jury trial' each of them was found guilty of aiding and abetting Ippolito in the commission of the substantive offense charged in the indictment. Judgment of conviction was entered on the guilty verdict and each was *534sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General. These appeals followed.

The two appeals were consolidated for briefing and oral argument herein and are considered jointly.

Appellants assert two errors relied upon for reversal, viz.: (1) that there was *no evidence*they had possession of the stolen goods or that they aided or abetted Ippolito; and (2) that the trial court gave an erroneous instruction to the jury.

At the trial, the Government presented the testimony of numerous agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who testified concerning the entire episode, the activities of appellants and their questioning Qualiato and his admissions (admitted only against him). Quagliato was the only defendant to take the stand and was the only witness produced by defendants.

It is elementary, of course, that in reviewing the record on appeal we will not weigh the credibility of witnesses, but must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, together with all reasonable inferences which might have been drawn therefrom.

We have reviewed the transcript of the evidence in this case. It is abundantly clear to us that the jury was justified in determining the issue of aiding and abetting as was done in this case. The evidence introduced by the Government amply supports the verdict of the jury.

We have examined the challenged instruction. Either appellants misunderstood the instruction or the objection is trivial. In any event, in our judgment the instruction in question was a correct statement of the law and the trial court did not err in so instructing the jury.

Finding the claims of appellants to be wholly without merit or substance, the judgment of conviction of each appellant is affirmed.

Affirmed.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 1527 V

Filed: November 5, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

DEANA KNOWLES

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)

William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for

petitioner.

Linda Sara Renzi

, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Corcoran

, Chief Special Master:

On October 3, 2018

, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) as a result of a n influen za ( “ flu ” ) vaccine admini stered on September 19, 2017 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing

Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This means the
decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other informati on, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified
material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished

decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United

States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electroni c Government Services)

.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012 ).2

On November 4, 2019

, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent concludes that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table

. Id. at 3 . Respondent further agrees that petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than

six months

. Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that petitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

RAVEN L. JETER, SR., 3 Case No. 1:17-cv-756

Plaintiff, i

Judge Timothy S. Black
vs.
: Magistrate Judge Stephanie K.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ; Bowman
REHABILITATION AND 5
CORRECTION, et ai.,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Docs. 4, 18, 34)

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United
States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the
Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and submitted several
Reports and Recommendations (Docs. 4, 18, 34). No objections were filed.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all
of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that the Reports and Recommendations should be and are hereby adopted in

their entirety. Accordingly:

L. The Magistrate Judge’s Reports and Recommendations (Docs. 4, 18, 34)
are ADOPTED;

2. The Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), with the exception of Plaintiffs Eighth
Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Combs, Lute,


Osborne, and Bear and his Eighth Amendment medical care claim against
defendant Mood;

3; Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief (Docs. 15, 20, 25) are
DENIED; and

4. Plaintiff's motions to amend the complaint (Docs. 24, 30) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 4 [22] 4 fe P
Timothy S. Bla

United States District Judge
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-85,808-01 & WR-85,808-02

EX P ARTE CODY ALLEN BUTT ERF IELD, App licant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. CR01864 & CR02066 IN THE DISTRICT COURT

F ROM RED RIVER C OUNTY

Per curiam . A L C A L A , J., concurs. O R D E R Pursuant to the provision s o f Ar t i cle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writ s o f h ab ea s co rpus. Ex parte Y ou n g , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of sexual assault of a child and eng ag ing in org anized criminal activity and sentenc ed to six teen and eight y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his convictions. Applicant contends that his trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance by faili n g to investigate hi s mental hea lth hist ory , failingto pursue a defe nse of lack of intent, failing to utiliz e his alcohol addiction as a mitigatingfac tor, and improper ly informing him of his pa

role elig ibilit y date.2

Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte Moussazadeh , 361 S.W .3d 684, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 201 2 ). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the a

ppropriate forum for

finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffe ctive as s i s t ance of counsel. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. I f t he trial court elects t o h o l d a hearing , it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the t ri al court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial co u rt shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether the perf ormanc e of Applicant’s trial counsel was defic ient and, if so, wh et h er counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues sh al l b e re s o l ved within 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of t his order

. Any extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.3

Filed: Oc tober 19, 2016 Do not publish
EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



     As independent public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our reports  included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's  previously filed
Registration  Statements:  Registration  Statement  No.  33-80943;  Registration
Statement  No.  33-80941;  Registration  Statement  No.  33-80801;  Registration
Statement No.  333-06561;  Registration  Statement No.  333-06567;  Registration
Statement No. 333-58099 and Registration Statement No. 333-58105.




ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Washington, D.C.
March 30, 1999

                                      E-3
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Velocity Express Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended July 3, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Vincent A. Wasik, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    VINCENT A. WASIKVincent A. WasikChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerOctober 17, 2005
----

Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION 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 Bellacasa Productions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edwin A. Reilly, President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (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.

Date: November 14, 2005

| /s/ Edwin A. Reilly                                                                                                                                                               |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|                                                                                                                                                                                   |
| Edwin A. Reilly, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

HENRY LUCAS, JR. CASE NO. 3:17cv275 

Plaintiff, 

JUDGE WALTER H. RICE 

v. 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. 

Defendant. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; TERMINATION ENTRY 

The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above matter has been 

settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice as to the parties, 

provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within 60 days, reopen the action if 

settlement is not consummated. 

Parties intending to preserve this Court's jurisdiction to enforce the settlement should be 

aware of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 114 S. Ct. 1673 ( 1994 ), and incorporate 

appropriate language in any substituted judgment entry. 

The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement between the parties, if 

necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:17-cr-261 (3)

Judge Marbley

Monae Alize Cox 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 77) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The Court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Counts 1-3 of the Superseding

Information, and she is hereby adjudged guilty on this count. The

Court will defer the decision of whether to accept the plea

agreement until the sentencing hearing.

Date: December 5, 2018 s\Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley

 United States District Judge
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RICHARD M. MORRIS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 3296

[ August 17, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Indian River County ; Cynthia L. Cox , Judge; L.T. Case No.

312007CF000671A

.

Richard M. Morris, Okeechobee, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine

Germanowicz, Assista nt Attorney General, West Palm Beach , for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G E RBER

, C.J., G ROSS and L EVINE

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50979 c/w No. 12-50115 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v. JERMAINE LYNN AGU, also known as Bart, Defendant–Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-66-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jermaine Lynn Agu pleaded guilty to consp i ri n g t o distribute crack

c o c ai n e , a nd he was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment and a 10-year term o f supervised release. Agu now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The Government moves for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 31 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50979 Document: 00512038632 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2012No. 11-50979 c/w No. 12-50115 We review a district court’s factual findings on a m o t i o n to suppress for clear error a n d i t s conclusions about whether the Fourth Amendment was violated de novo. United States v. Pack , 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.), modified , 622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed in the district court—in this case, the Government. Id. Agu argues that the incriminating evidence in this case should have been suppressed because it was discovered pursuant to a traf f i c s t o p that was pretextual. As Agu concedes, und e r the facts of his case, the Supreme Court’s h o l ding in Whren v. United States , 517 U.S. 806 (1996), precludes him from obtai ni n g r e l i ef on appeal. See Whren , 517 U.S. at 817-19. Although Agu’s argument lacks merit, it is not so frivolous as to warrant summary disposition. See United States v. Holy Land Found. For Relief & Dev. , 445 F.3d 771, 781-82 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s

al t e r n a tive motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary.

2 Case: 11-50979 Document: 00512038632 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2012
NO. 07-07 -007 8-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D APR IL 9, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ ERASM O G ON ZAL ES, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 69 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF DA L L AM COU NT Y; TH NO. 3320 -7; HON. RON ENN S, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Di smissal

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. Erasmo G onz ale s ( appel lan t) appeal s a n order den ying hi s “ Mo ti on for Judi ci al Not ic e” si g ned by

the tr ial co urt t his y ear . W e di smi ss the caus e for w ant o f jur is dicti on. As rev eale d by the allegation s and argumen t in his pro se appel lan t’ s b ri ef, appel lan t has u se d h is p ur por

ted req uestfor t he tr ial co urt t o tak e j udi ci al noti ce as a means of attac ki ng the v ali dity or leg ali ty of hi s 1996 conv icti on. Y et, that conv icti on bec a m e final bot h ma ny y ears ago an d ma ny y ears be fore ap pellan t f iled his 200 7 no tice of app eal.2

T EX . R. A PP . P

. 2 6 (a ) (re qu ir in g a n a p p e ll a n tt o f il e h is n o t ic e o f a p p e a l wit h in 3 0 o r 9 0 d a ys of the da te th e trial court sen ten ced h im in op en co urt). Mo re ov er , ev en i f w e w ere to int er pret t he moti on to tak e j udi ci al noti ce as e ffort t o ini ti a te a ha beas proceed ing under ar t. 11.07 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re , that w oul d not chang e the outc ome. Those proceed ing s are commenc ed in the C our t of Criminal App eals, a nd int erme diate app ellate courts, such a s o urs, have no aut hority to a ct on them. Par

r v. State, 206 S. W .3d 1 43, 1 45 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 2006, no pet .) ( hol din g that interm edia te ap pellat e cou rts have no jurisdiction over art. 11.0 7 proce edin gs)

. In s um, w e hav e no jur is dicti on ov er the subs tanc e of appel lan t’ s c omplai nts , and hav ing no suc h jur is dicti on, w e hav e no choi ce but t o di smi ss the appeal

. Ol iv o v. State, 918 S.W .2d 519 , 523 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96) ( obligating an int erme diate app ellate court to di smi ss the appeal i f it lac ks j ur is dicti on)

. So, iti s d is mis sed.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|  | (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/**MICHAEL              BARTH                 |   |   |   |
| Michael              Barth                        |   |   |        |
| Chief              Financial              Officer |   |   |   |
| November 20, 2006                                 |   |   |   |

----