alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People v. Charles Quick.

*Oriminallaw*— Testimony *in one’sown defence*— Obligation *to call witnesses named on information.*

The purpose of permitting the respondent in a criminal prosecution to o testify on his own behalf is to enable him to present his own defence.

The prosecution in a criminal case are not obliged to call all the witnesses that are named on the information.

Exceptions before judgment from Oakland. (Stickney, J.)

Oct. 19. — Oct. 19.

Opinion filed February 7, 1884.

LaeoeNY. Respondent was convicted.

Reversed.

*Thos. I. Patterson, A. B. Tripp*and *T. J. Davis*for appellant.

Attorney General *Jaeób J. Vm Riper*for tbe People.

Pee Cueiam.

The defendant in this case was a witness on bis own behalf. The charge was of larceny of a watch. The defendant did not deny taking the watch, and the question at issue was the felonious intent. The defendant had picked up the owner of the watch from the ground in the public street where, as he testified, he was lying partly on his face. He raised him up and tried to have him stand on his feet. He was then asked by his counsel *“*Why did you do that ? ” This was objected to “ as permitting the defendant to make his own defence,” and ruled out. This was error. The purpose in permitting the defendant to testify on his own behalf is precisely this: to permit him to make his own defence. Further explanations by him were cut off by the like objections.

Other questions are raised not likely to come up on another trial, and we do not consider them. One may be mentioned, however, namely, whether the prosecution is under obligation to produce on the trial every person named as a witness on the information. We think not. ,.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

BERNARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

VILLAGE CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

LLC,

Defendant

Case No. 2:18-cv-00668

JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

Magistrate Judge Deavers

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Village Capital and Investment, LLC's

Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 10.) The parties have reported this case as settled and are finalizingthe

payment terms of their agreement. (See Doc. 27.) Considering that this case has been settled,

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [#10] is MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Algenon L. Marblev

ALGENON L. MARBLEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: September 27,2019
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 13, 2013

NO. 03-09-00088-CV

Barbara J. Booker, Appellant

v.

City of Austin, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PURYEAR AND PEMBERTON

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the district court’s 

judgment: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the judgment of the 

district court is in all things affirmed. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellant pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision be certified 

below for observance.
NO. 07-01-0347-CR

NO. 07-01-0348-CR

NO. 07-01-0349-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

SEPTEMBER 4, 2001

______________________________

ANTHONY RAY ARCHER, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NOS. 41,448-A, 41,450-A, 41,452-A ; HONORABLE RICHARD DAMBOLD, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

Appellant Anthony Ray Archer attempts to appeal three separate convictions, after

guilty pleas, of aggravated robbery for which he was sentenced to 15 years confinement

in the Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice on each charge.

However, we must dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.
2

In each case, sentence was pronounced in open court on February 9, 2001, but

appellant’s notices of appeal were not filed until August 21, 2001. A timely filed notice of

appeal is essential to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519,

522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days

after the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). An

appellate court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a motion seeking an

extension of time is filed within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal.

Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. In this instance, appellant did not file his notices of appeal until at

least five months after the deadline for doing so, and he did not file a motion for extension

of time. 

Because the notices of appeal were not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to

consider these appeals. Accordingly, we must and do hereby dismiss these appeals. 

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and theChief Financial Officer of New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. (the “Company”),each hereby certifies that, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

(a)                                  theForm 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 filed on the datehereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b)                                 theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        |   |   |   | /s/ Glenn J. Rufrano    |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Glenn J. Rufrano        |
|   |   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   |   | February 26, 2007       |
|   |   |   |   |                    |
|   |   |   |   |                    |
|   |   |   |   | /s/ John B. Roche       |
|   |   |   |   | John B. Roche           |
|   |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |   |   | February 26, 2007       |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to New PlanExcel Realty Trust, Inc. and will be retained by New Plan Excel Realty Trust,Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
<page>		 			  EXHIBIT 31.02

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey D. Hahn, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation ("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant,
certify that:

1.		I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
registrant;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;

4.		The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting; and


<page>
5.		The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of Demeter's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:  May 17, 2004         /s/Jeffrey D. Hahn
                               Jeffrey D. Hahn
                               Chief Financial Officer,
                               Demeter Management Corporation,
                               general partner of the registrant
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44924

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

LUKE CARR ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 645

Filed: November 16, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Payette County. Hon. Susan E. Wiebe , District Judge.

Appeal from judgment of conviction and order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, dismissed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Luke Carr pleaded guilty to aggravated driving under the influence , Idaho Code § 18

- 8006, 18

- 8004(1)(A), felony fleeing or attempting to elude a police off icer, I.C. § 49

- 1404(2)(B) and/or D, and felony possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, I.C. 37

- 2732(c)(1)

. As part of a plea agreement, Carr waived his right to file an Idaho Criminal Rule 35
motion, to withdraw his plea, and to appeal the sentence. Respectively, t he district court
imposed a unified ten

- year sentence, with four years determinate, a unified five

- year sentence, with two years determinate, and a unified five

- year sentence, with two years determinate. Carr

filed an Idaho Cr iminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Carr appeals contending2 that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and denying his
I.C.R. 35 motion,

We hold that Carr ’s appellate challenge to the excessiv eness of his sentences and the
right to file an I.C.R. 35 motion ha ve been waived by his plea agreement. See I.C.R. 11(f)(1);
State v. Cope , 142 Idaho 492, 495

- 99, 129 P.3d 1241, 1245

- 49 (2006); State v. Rodriguez , 142
Idaho 786, 787, 133 P.3d 1251, 1 252 (Ct. App. 2006). Accordingly, we dismiss Carr ’s appeal.
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 1 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 2 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 3 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 4 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 5 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 6 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 7 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 8 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 9 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 10 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 11 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 12 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 13 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 14 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 15 of 16

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98-3      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 16 of 16
Exhibit 10.1.6

                         AMENDMENT DATED AUGUST 7, 1998
                                       TO
                              WTD INDUSTRIES, INC.

                             1996 STOCK OPTION PLAN


         The WTD Industries,  Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") is hereby
amended as follows: Section 4.1 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

                  4.1  Authorized Number of Shares.

                           Subject to  adjustment  as provided in Section 9.1, a
                  maximum of 1,425,000 shares of Common Stock shall be available
                  for  issuance  under the Plan.  Shares  issued  under the Plan
                  shall be drawn from  authorized and unissued  shares or shares
                  now held or subsequently acquired by the Company.

         The effective date of such amendment  shall be August 7, 1998, the date
of the adoption of such amendment by the Board of Directors of the  corporation,
unless the shareholders of the corporation fail to approve such amendment.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Southern District of Ohio

CARMEN CARTER

WELTMAN, WEINBERG AND REIS CO. LPA

WELTMAN, WEINBERG AND REIS CO. LPA

c/o Eileen M. Bitterman

965 Keynote Circle

Brooklyn Heights, OH 44131

DannLaw

PO Box 6031040

Cleveland OH 44103

1:18-cv-161

3/5/18

Case: 1:18-cv-00161-MRB Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/05/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 21
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) . I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

. My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

Case: 1:18-cv-00161-MRB Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/05/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 22
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A RTI SI A Y ESEN I A A LCA ZA RGO NZALEZ , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 74469 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 176- 434

ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 6, 2012 ** B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A rt i s i aY e s e ni aA l c a z ar - G onz a l e z , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng her m ot i on t o r e m and t o pr e s e ntne w e vi de nc e i n s upportof he rappl i c a t i on f

or 

# FI LED MA R 15 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 74469 2 cancel l at i on of re m ov al . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e m an d , R om er o-R uiz v . Mukasey , 538 F . 3d 1057, 1062 ( 9th C i r . 2008) , a nd w e gr antthe pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w a nd rem an dfo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. T h e B I A ab u s e dits d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g A lc a z ar - G o n z a le z ’s m o tio n to r e m and w he r e the ne w e vi de nc e s he pr e s e nt e d w i th he rm ot i on w a s s uf f i c i e nt un der I n r e R e c i nas , 2 3 I . & N . D e c . 4 6 7 ( B I A 2 0 0 2 ) , to e s tab lis h p r im af a c ie e lig ib ilityf

o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. See Ferna ndezv. G on zales , 439 F . 3d 592, 6 0 0 n . 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( t o e s t ab l i s h ap r i m af a c i e c a s e , p e t i t i o n e rm u s ts h o w a r e a s o n ab le lik e lih o o do f s a tis f y in g th e s ta tu to ryr e q u ir e m e n ts f o rr e lie f ) . W e th e r e f

o r e g r an t th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w a n dr e m an dto th e B I A w ith i nstruct i on s t o rem and t o the i m m i grat i on j ud ge for anew hear i ng on A l ca zarG onz a l e z ’ s c anc e l l a t i on appl i c a t i on. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH 

INSTITUTE, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v. 

RYAN SMITH, Speaker of the Ohio House 

of Representatives, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-357

Judge Timothy S. Black 

Judge Karen Nelson Moore 

Judge Michael H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

 

MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

Pursuant to Local Rule 5.2.1(a), Movants hereby move the Court for an order permitting 

them to file under seal their Reply Brief in Further Support of their Motion to Compel 

Compliance with Subpoenas Served on E. Mark Braden (“Reply”) and a declaration in support 

of the Reply (the “Declaration”).

The Reply describes the deposition testimony of Clark Bensen and Adam Kincaid, and 

the Declaration attaches as exhibits excerpts of the deposition transcripts. Parties in this case 

have seven days after the receipt of the deposition transcript to designate testimony Confidential 

pursuant to the Protective Order governing the case. See Stipulation and Protective Order. ECF 

57, ¶ 2(c). Counsel for Mr. Bensen stated their intention to designate Mr. Bensen’s testimony 

Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order, necessitating this motion. 

Movants hereby request that leave be granted to file the Reply under seal, on the 

condition that the seal expire 30 days from filing unless (1) any party successfully moves to seal 

the filing (or portions of the filing) under the standards set forth by the Sixth Circuit Court of 
Appeals, or (2) any party moves to extend the conditional period on the basis that a motion to 

seal is pending before the Court.

Dated: December 11, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jeremy Goldstein 

Jeremy Michael P. Goldstein

Robert D. Fram 

Covington & Burling LLP

One Front Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

(415) 591-6000

rfram@cov.com

jgoldstein@cov.com

Michael Baker (DC Bar #1044327)

Covington & Burling LLP

One City Center

850 Tenth Street NW

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 662-6000

mbaker@cov.com

T. Alora Thomas-Lundborg

Dale E. Ho

Theresa J. Lee

Emily Rong Zhang

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

New York, NY 10004

(212) 549-2500

athomas@aclu.org

dho@aclu.org

tlee@aclu.org

erzhang@aclu.org

Freda J. Levenson

American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Fdtn.

4506 Chester Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44103

(216) 472-2220

flevenson@acluohio.org

Counsel for Movants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 11, 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

Motion was served on counsel for Respondents by filing via the Court’s CM/ECF system. 

/s/ Jeremy Goldstein

Counsel for Movants