alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-60294

Summary Calendar

 

LARRY LEE JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, of Franklin County, Mississippi;

JAMES NEWMAN, Sheriff,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:97-CV-323-LN

- - - - - - - - - -

April 28, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Lee Jones, Mississippi prisoner #19614, appeals from

the grant of summary judgment for the defendants in his

prisoner’s civil rights action. Jones contends that the district

court erred by granting summary judgment for the Board of

Supervisors and for Sheriff James Newman in his official capacity

because the defendants should be liable for Sheriff Newman’s

abuse of his policy-making capacity. He argues that a list of

dates written by Sheriff Newman created a genuine issue of 
No. 98-60294

-2-

material fact regarding when Sheriff Newman knew of the injury to

his (Jones’s) hand and therefore of his need for medical

treatment. Jones finally contends that the district court

deprived him of his right to a jury trial by granting summary

judgment for the defendants.

Regarding Jones’s medical-care claims, we have reviewed the

record and the briefs of the parties and we find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on

those claims for essentially the same reasons as relied upon by

the district court. See Jones v. Bd. of Supervisors, No. 3:97-

CV-323-LN (S.D. Miss. Apr. 16, 1998). Finally, Jones’s right to

a jury trial was not violated by the grant of summary judgment. 

Plaisance v. Phelps, 845 F.2d 107, 108 (5th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1501

To repeal certain provisions of law relating to trading with Indians.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 29 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 27), 1993

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Mr. DOMENICI) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

A BILL

To repeal certain provisions of law relating to trading with

Indians.

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 Section 437 of title 18, United States Code, is re5 pealed.

Æ
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|Kentucky Natural Gas % of Total Electric Utility Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|Kentucky Natural Gas % of Total Electric Utility Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 0.01   | 0.01   | 0.03   | 0.07   | 0.05   | 0.13   | 0.12  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0.08   | 0.08   | 0.24   | 0.07   | 0.09   | 0.29   | 0.20   | 0.28   | 0.14   | 0.12  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0.26   | 0.21   | 0.34   | 0.18   | 0.33   | 0.54   | 0.67   | 0.88   | 1.06   | 1.00  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0.88   | 0.96   | 1.13   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-8222.

#### Pearson *v.*Smith, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-8060.

#### Brammer *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leon Roach, Appellant

(Appeal No. 1.)

[768 NYS2d 877]

Appeal from a judgment of Monroe County Court (Geraci, Jr., J.), entered January 11, 2002, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from two judgments, each convicting him, after a single jury trial, of one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.41 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not err in denying his motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3) seeking to set aside the verdict without first conducting a hearing *(see People v Corchado,*299 AD2d 843, 843-844 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 581 [2003]; *cf. People v Nicholson,*222 AD2d 1055, 1056-1057 [1995]). The court reviewed the documentary evidence submitted by defendant in support of his motion and properly determined that the evidence was not “of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 330.30 [3]; *see People v McCullough,*275 AD2d 1018, 1019 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 936 [2000]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, we conclude that the court’s *Sandoval*ruling did not constitute an abuse of discretion *(see generally People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203, 207-208 [2002]). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

Defendant contends in his pro se supplemental brief that the court erred in denying his motion seeking to dismiss the indictment in appeal No. 1 on the ground that the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient. Where, as here, the judgment of conviction is based upon legally sufficient trial evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is not reviewable *(see*CPL 210.30 [6]; *People v Butler,*300 AD2d *13901103, 1104 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 613 [2003]). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions in the pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.
|                                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                        |
| Euramax Holdings, Inc., Delaware                       |
| Amerimax Richmond Company, Indiana                     |
| Ellbee Limited, United Kingdom                         |
| EMAX Metals LLC, Delaware                              |
| EMAX North LP, United Kingdom                          |
| EMAX Products LLC, Delaware                            |
| Euramax B.V., Netherlands                              |
| Euramax Canada, Inc., Canada                           |
| Euramax Canada Holdings, Inc., Canada                  |
| Euramax Coated Products, B.V., Netherlands             |
| Euramax Coated Products Limited, United Kingdom        |
| Euramax Continental Limited, United Kingdom            |
| Euramax Europe Limited, United Kingdom                 |
| Euramax European Holdings Limited, United Kingdom      |
| Euramax Holdings Limited, United Kingdom               |
| Euramax Industries S.A, France                         |
| Euramax International, Inc., Delaware                  |
| Euramax International Holdings B.V., Netherlands       |
| Euramax International Holdings Limited, United Kingdom |
| Euramax International Limited, United Kingdom          |
| Euramax Netherlands B.V., Netherlands                  |
| Euramax UK Limited, United Kingdom                     |
2017-1521.

#### State v. Hayes.

Franklin App. No. 16AP-531, 2017-Ohio-7185. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
No. 12-7096.

#### Potter *v.*Toei Animation Inc. et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 99(b)

 

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 accompanying Quarterly Report of ALLTEL Corporation(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, JefferyR. Gardner, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

          (1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Jeffery R. Gardner

Jeffery R. GardnerSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 13, 2002
No. 12-8084.

#### Rouse *v.*Washington.

Sup. Ct. Wash. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### First Manhattan Energy Corporation, Respondent, v David Q. Meyer, Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 28]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered June 28, 2016, which denied defendant David Q. Meyer’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against him, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the breach of contract cause of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Meyer failed to release funds that plaintiff deposited into Meyer’s lawyer trust account to be held in escrow. Plaintiff had entered into the escrow agreement with a New York law firm, which had designated defendant, a California attorney, as its agent, pursuant to an agreement with defendant. Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground, inter alia, of lack of jurisdiction over him, arguing that he was *522a California lawyer with no presence in New York, was not party to the escrow agreement, and did not transact business in New York.

Plaintiff made a sufficient showing of jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) to withstand dismissal *(see Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp.,*71 NY2d 460, 467 [1988] [“proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction”]). The record establishes prima facie that defendant, while not a party to the instant escrow agreement, was designated in the escrow agreement as the “Assigned Escrow Agent[ ]” into whose account the funds would be deposited, and that he accepted the funds pursuant to the agreement. In so doing, pursuant to his agreement with the New York escrowee, defendant “affected local commerce” in New York by “changing] [plaintiff’s] economic position,” and in receiving the funds into his California account via wire transfer, he transacted business here by availing himself of modern technology to participate in and confer upon himself the benefit of the transaction while living and physically working elsewhere *(see Opticare Acquisition Corp. v Castillo,*25 AD3d 238, 245 [2d Dept 2005]).

Because defendant was not party to the escrow agreement, the claim alleging breach of the escrow agreement fails to state a cause of action against him *(see Perrotti v Becker, Glynn, Melamed & Muffly LLP,*82 AD3d 495, 499 [1st Dept 2011]). However, the complaint states causes of action against him for breach of fiduciary duty *(see Greenapple v Capital One, N.A.,*92 AD3d 548, 549 [1st Dept 2012]), conversion *(see Swift Funding, LLC v Isacc,*144 AD3d 471, 472 [1st Dept 2016]), and unjust enrichment *(see generally Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein,*16 NY3d 173, 182 [2011]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.
# ‘The American dream is real’: Once a desperate refugee, now a US Army general

/ Published Feb. 4, 2019
Richmond, Va, 
(Editor’s Note:The story below is reposted from the Stars and Stripes, Feb. 1, 2019, and features Brig. Gen. Lapthe Flora, deputy commander of U.S. Army Africa and assistant adjutant general of the Virginia National Guard. The Virginia National Guard recently expanded its presence on Defense Supply Center, Richmond, Virginia, after building its Joint Force Headquarters on center, May 14, 2018.)

VICENZA, Italy — He was a penniless, traumatized Vietnamese teenager with a fifth-grade education when in 1980 he arrived in the U.S. He knew how to survive in the jungle, evade checkpoints and control the terror he often felt.

But he couldn’t speak more than a few words of English and had little practice in how to live a regular life.

Yet within seven years after his American arrival, Lap The Chau had a new name, a degree from the Virginia Military Institute and a career as “an officer in the greatest Army on Earth,” as he put it.

Brig. Gen. Lapthe Flora, as he’s now known, is deputy commander of U.S. Army Africa and assistant adjutant general of the Virginia National Guard.

To read more about Flora’s inspirational journey, access the full story at Stars and Stripes.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November 12, 2010 |   |
|-------------------|--------|

|   | /s/ Venerando J. Indelicato                                             Venerando J. IndelicatoPrincipal Financial Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
# L_2010283EN.01002101.xml

| 29.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 283/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/21

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 970/2010

of 28 October 2010

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Lapin Poron kuivaliha (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Finland’s application to register the name ‘Lapin Poron kuivaliha’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Finland’s application to register the name ‘Lapin Poron kuivaliha’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 October 2010.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 42, 19.2.2010, p. 12.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.2.   Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

FINLAND

Lapin Poron kuivaliha (PDO)

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alvin Lewis, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 915]

—Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), both rendered March 7, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 99-00533, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 00-00559, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
No. 12-6745.

#### Valentin *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
p. 1


# OAR Box 1252 Prepped by Candice Davis



### Document

Number: 

# 30 ) IV-F-12 Docket Number: 

# A-90-22

Printed 5/21/2008 11:46:01 AM Sheet 30of 184P. 2 

# A-90-2 2 IV-F-1 2

Statemen t o f D . M . Driesen , Natura l Resource s Defens e Council , befor e th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency o n th e Propose d Hazardou s Organi c NESHA P for the SOCM I Industrypubli c hearing hel d i n Bato n Rouge , Louisiana , Marc h18 , 1993 . Thi s ite m i s identica l t o Docke t No . A-90-19 , Ite

m NO . IV-F-12 .



### I 7 

### ft % n
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Patrick S. Murray, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 705]

— Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Cortland County (Smith, J.), entered May 2, 2003, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment convicting him of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree, without a hearing.

In March 2000, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree in satisfaction of a five-count indictment. During the plea allocution, defendant was told that he would receive a determinate two-year sentence, but he was not informed of the three-year period of postrelease supervision imposed by Penal Law § 70.45. At the time of sentencing, however, County Court stated that the sentence being imposed included three years of postrelease supervision. After the sentence was imposed, defendant signed a waiver of his right to appeal and did not pursue an appeal. In January 2003, he moved *1161pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his judgment of conviction and withdraw his plea of guilty on the ground that County Court failed to inform him about the postrelease supervision at the time of his plea. County Court granted defendant’s motion. The People appeal.

We reverse. Notwithstanding his waiver, defendant could have raised the sentencing issue in a direct appeal and the record would have been sufficient for review of that issue *(see People v Swansbrough,*307 AD2d 389 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 624 [2003]). Defendant’s failure to pursue the issue in an available appeal precludes consideration of the issue within the context of this CPL article 440 motion *(see*CPL 440.10 [2] [c]; *People v Swansbrough, supra*at 390; *People v Lindsey,*302 AD2d 128 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 583 [2003]). County Court thus erred in granting defendant’s motion.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and motion denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       379,234,000
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                 102,958,000
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             493,213,000
<CASH>                                      14,423,000
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                          25,096,000
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      56,807,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             747,669,000
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            126,733,000
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                        236,309,000
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                       29,201,000
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                             71,691,000
<COMMON>                                       911,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 205,170,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               747,669,000
<PREMIUMS>                                  90,479,000
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          5,842,000
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                           1,039,000
<OTHER-INCOME>                               9,877,000
<BENEFITS>                                  48,121,000
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                 25,513,000
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        14,855,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,584,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,544,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,040,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,040,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.64
<RESERVE-OPEN>                             108,334,000
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                            112,149,000
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>