alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-14-2007

USA v. Shusterman

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-4196

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Shusterman" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 61.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/61
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

NO. 06-4196

 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DENIS SHUSTERMAN,

 Appellant

 

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Crim. Action No. 04-cr-00364)

District Judge: Hon. Legrome D. Davis

 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 10, 2007

BEFORE: RENDELL and STAPLETON,

Circuit Judges, and IRENAS, District Judge*

(Opinion Filed: December 14, 2007)

 

 

* Hon. Joseph E. Irenas, Senior District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by

designation.
2

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Denis Shusterman pled guilty on the twelfth day of his jury trial to all

the charges against him. Two months later, as his sentencing approached, he moved to

withdraw his guilty pleas. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied

this motion. United States v. Shusterman, 459 F. Supp. 2d 357 (E.D. Pa. 2006). This

appeal followed.

Before us, Shusterman contends (1) that his pleas were not voluntarily and

knowingly entered; (2) that his trial counsel was “constitutionally defective;” and (3) that

his prosecutor committed “misconduct.” After consideration of all of Shusterman’s

arguments, we conclude that his convictions must stand.

For the reasons set forth in the District Court’s thorough and careful opinion, it did

not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow the withdrawal of Shusterman’s pleas.

In his brief before us, Shusterman appears to contend that ineffective assistance of

counsel at trial entitles him to a new trial without reference to whether it rendered his

pleas involuntary or unknowing. If so, he waived this argument when he pled guilty. 

United States v. Panarella, 277 F.3d 678 (3d Cir. 2002). In any event, as explained at
3

length in the District Court’s opinion, Shusterman has not shown ineffective assistance of

counsel at trial.

Shusterman’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct at trial are also barred by his

guilty pleas. Washington v. Sobina, 475 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2007).

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
#### McDowell *et. al. vs.*King.

[Mr. Owsley for plaintiff: Messrs. Morehead and Brown for defendants ]

Ejectment,

From the Circuit Court for Boone County.

*April*13.

Ejectment lies only against a tenant in *actual*possession. Pl’tf cannot, by electing to be disseized, make a party who merely claims the land, without entry up on it, a trespasser or disseizor, so as to maintain, the action against him.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court,

The plaintiffs complain, that the Circuit Court erred in rendering a judgment in favor of the defendant King, on a verdict of not guilty, in an action of ejectment. And they argue that, although there is no evidence that King was in the actual possession of the land sued for, or of any portion of it, yet, as he *claimed*it and *lived near it,*they might *elect*to be *disseized,*and *thus*maintain their action to try the titles.

But it seems to us, that the doctrine of *disseizen by election*has never *yet*been carried so far; and that no one can, by any *legal*fiction,, be deemed a *disseizor*who was never, *in fact,*seized; or be converted into a trespasser by merely holding a claim to land, which does not, in any ’ manner, obstruct the right of entry or of occupancy, by *68any other claimant. We had supposed that, to maintain an ejectment against a party, some proof of his possession in fact of some part of the land, is indispensable.; and such is the law.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
II 

Calendar No. 538 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6983 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 15 South Valdosta Road in Lakeland, Georgia, 

as the ‘‘Nell Patten Roquemore Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6983 RS

1 SECTION 1. NELL PATTEN ROQUEMORE POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 15 South Valdosta Road in Lake4 land, Georgia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Nell 

5 Patten Roquemore Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Nell Patten 

10 Roquemore Post Office’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 538 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6983 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostRoquemore Post Office’’. Lakeland, Georgia, as the ‘‘Nell Patten al Service located at 15 South Valdosta Road in 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

Concentration (parts per million)

Pechanga Temecula Lake Elsinore

DAILY 1-HOUR OZONE MAXIMUM VALUES FOR SELECTED MONITORS

JANUARY 1, 2010 - JUNE 30, 2013

Source: US EPA's Air Quality Systems (AQS) database (September 24, 2013). All event records included. 
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

Concentration (parts per million)

Pechanga Temecula Lake Elsinore

DAILY 8-HOUR OZONE MAXIMUM VALUES FOR SELECTED MONITORS

JANUARY 1, 2010 - JUNE 30, 2013

Source: US EPA's Air Quality Systems (AQS) database (September 24, 2013). All event records included.
Order entered June 6 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 00481 - CV FRENCH LARRY TAYLOR, Appellant

V. WENDIE RENEE WILLIAM S, Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380 - 56604 - 2015



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s June 2, 2016 motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed, appellant’s brief is not yet due. On May 10, 2016, the Court sent a past

- due notice to the court reporter instructing her to file the reporter’s record within thirty days. Appellant’s brief will be due thirty days after the reporter’s record is filed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8.6(a). Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s motion as premature.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
#### White *against*Johnson and Others.

Chancery.

[Mr. Lyle for plaintiff: Mr. Robinson &c. for defendants.]

From the Circuit Court for Scott County.

*November*3.

To a bill io.ch.’y upon a jointobligation, all.who may be "liable— as well the per-, sonal representatives of deceased obligors, as the survivors—must, be made def’ts.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

When a party sues in Equity on a lost or defaced joint obligation, he should make all who may be liable defendants to his bill: and even though some of the obligors shall have died, he should join their personal representatives with the survivors; because Equity is opposed to circuity and multiplicity of litigation, and delights in distributing at once an equal burthen among all who should contribute to discharge it.

And therefore, without considering other objections to the bill in this case, as it was filed against the surviving obligors only, and suggests no.reason for omitting the representatives of those alleged to be dead—the Circuit Court, on that ground, had .there been no other, did right in sustaining the demurrer, and dismissing the bill without prejudice.

Wherefore, the decree is affirmed.
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 Annual Report of American Physicians Insurance Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Maury L. Magids, Principal Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.





|               |                                       |                    
|-------------- | ------------------------------------- | -------------------
|April 27, 2007 |                                       |                    
|               | American Physicians Insurance Company
|               |                                       |                    
|               | By:                                   | /s/ Maury L. Magids
|               | President and Chief Operating Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7330
TYRONE L. JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. BRAXTON, Warden for the Red Onion State Prison, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-930) Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone L. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: This matter is before the court following a limited remand for a determination as to whether Tyrone L. Johnson could show excusable neglect with regard to his untimely notice of appeal. Because Johnson did not make a showing of excusable neglect, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 1, 2003. Johnson’s notice of appeal was executed on August 21, 2003. On limited remand to the district court for a determination of excusable neglect, Johnson filed a motion to withdraw and indicated he no longer wished to pursue his appeal. This does not constitute a showing a excusable neglect. Because Johnson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Johnson’s motion for a certificate of appealability. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions- 3 - are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### Summary of Analy tical Results 662 - March 2012

**Sample ID** 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB **Date** 3/5/12 3/12/12 3/19/12 3/26/12 **Top (ft)** 0 0 0 0 **Total (T)/ Bottom (ft)**  0 0 0 0 **An aly**  **te units**  **Diss. (D) Duplicate #**  1 1 1 1 PFOA ug/L T 2.23 2.90 NQ (<2.00) NQ (<2.00)

ug/L = micrograms per liter or parts per billion (ppb) ND = not detected (shown as <LOD) NQ = not quantifiable (shown as <LOQ) ND<LOD<NQ<LOQ LOD - limit of detection LOQ = limit of quantification

Samples were analyzed by Critical Path Services LLC. Reported results represent a single analysis, except for the sample collected on 3/12/12. Acceptable precision was obtained and the reported result for the sample collected on 3/12/12 represents the average of lab duplicate results.

The NJDEP lab certification number for Critical Path Services LLC is PA072. PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic Acid ug/L = micrograms per Liter

< and ND = Non detect at stated reporting limit Page 1 of 1 090000648104790a.xls:Sheet1 6/14/2012 3:43 PM
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; NINDS Contract Review.                    

*Date:*                         April 4, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         11:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Marilyn Moore-Hoon, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-9087,                         *mooremar@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 7, 2022. 

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-05138 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### IN RE: Michael John ENNIS, Debtor, Michael John Ennis, Appellant, v. Fair Play Real Estate, LLC, Appellee.

No. 16-60076

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed June 30, 2017

Michael John Énnis, Pro Se

Mary E. Tang, French Lyon Tang, Walnut Creek, CA, for Appellee

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Michael John Ennis appeals pro se from an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) dismissing as moot Ennis’s appeal from a bankruptcy court’s order granting appellee’s motion to lift the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the BAP’s determination that a bankruptcy appeal is moot. *Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.),*152 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed Ennis’s appeal as moot because appellee Fair Play Real Estate, LLC, took possession of the property in dispute pursuant to an unlawful detainer judgment obtained in state court, which prevented the BAP from granting Ennis effective relief. *See id.*at 1180-81 (a case is moot where “an event occurs while a case is pending appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief’ (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Ennis’s arguments addressing the underlying merits of the appeal.

Appellee’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 13) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Executive Officer,

As Adopted
Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, Gerald L. Storch, Chief Executive Officer of Toys R Us, Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended April 29, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/ GERALD L. STORCH                
|Gerald L. Storch                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)       
|                                    
|June 13, 2006
Att. 008

Contains Confidential Business Information

Confidential Information Redacted
II

Calendar No. 112

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 677

To repeal a redundant venue provision, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 5, 1995

Mr. HATCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

MAY 18 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Reported by Mr. HATCH without amendment

A BILL

To repeal a redundant venue provision, and for other

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL.

4 (a) REPEAL.—Subsection (a) of section 1392 of title

5 28, United States Code, is repealed.

6 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Subsection (b) of

7 section 1392 of title 28, United States Code, is amended

8 by striking ‘‘(b) Any’’ and inserting ‘‘Any’’.
Calendar No. 112

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 677

A BILL

To repeal a redundant venue provision, and for

other purposes.

MAY 18 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Reported without amendment
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
consolidated  balance  sheets  and  consolidated  statements  of  income  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS     
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1998 
<CASH>                                           610,726
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    987,277 
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       0 
<PP&E>                                        53,375,777 
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                59,897,916 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  0
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                    38,566,615 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  59,897,916
<SALES>                                           79,958
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               9,477,356
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,520,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 271,266
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               708,406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  957,309
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              957,309 
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     957,309
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       1.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       1.86
        


</TABLE>