alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Giovanni Roperto, Appellant.

[59 NYS3d 439]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered January 13, 2015, convicting him of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the defendant’s convictions were not against the weight of the evidence.

The defendant contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s failure to *557request, inter alia, that the jury be charged with physical force justification in addition to deadly physical force justification. This contention is without merit because there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to the defendant, to support a finding that the defendant, who stabbed the two victims with a knife, used only nondeadly physical force *(see People v Lugg,*124 AD3d 679, 680 [2015]; *People v Taylor,*118 AD3d 1044, 1047 [2014]; *People v Steele,*19 AD3d 175 [2005]), and “[t]here can be no denial of effective assistance of trial counsel arising from counsel’s failure to ‘make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success’ ” *(People v Caban,*5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005], quoting *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]). Furthermore, focusing on the “fairness of the process as a whole” *(People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 714 [1998]) and reviewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case in totality, including the fact that defense counsel secured the defendant’s acquittal on certain counts, we find that the defendant was provided with meaningful representation *(see People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain comments made by the prosecutor during his opening and closing statements is largely unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Speaks,*28 NY3d 990, 992 [2016]).

Dillon, J.P., Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
2017-1609.

#### State v. Braden.

Franklin App. No. 17AP-48, 2017-0hio-7903. Cause accepted on proposition of law No. I.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2017-1579, *State v. Braden,*and briefing in Nos. 2017-1609 and 2017-1579 shall be consolidated. The parties shall file two originals of each of the briefs permitted under S.Ct.Prae.R. 16.02 through 16.04 and include both case numbers on the cover page of the briefs. The parties shall otherwise comply with the requirements of S.Ct.Prae.R. 16.01 through 16.04.

Kennedy, J., would accept the cause on all propositions of law.

*1527DeWine, J., dissents.

O’Donnell and O’Neill, J.J., not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,234,527
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,094,488
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (193,950)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,615,114
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,717,335
<PP&E>                                       3,236,424
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,015,018)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,918,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,811,327
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       327,483
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,122,508
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,918,590
<SALES>                                      5,406,493
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,406,493
<CGS>                                        2,839,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,839,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,726,824
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                13,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             199,491
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (372,122) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,354
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (390,476)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (390,476)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.12)
        

</TABLE>
#### Schader v. Schader

10/27/2015

370, 371 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 374; 120 A.3d 1049
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         332,713
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,209,788
<ALLOWANCES>                                   451,725
<INVENTORY>                                    298,888
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,510,303
<PP&E>                                      10,417,871
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,318,199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,536,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,073,601
<BONDS>                                      7,111,229
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       654,380
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,697,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,536,295
<SALES>                                     49,995,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            49,995,837
<CGS>                                       39,081,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,271,649
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (250,349)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,607,187)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,607,187)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,607,187)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)


</TABLE>
No. 09-10828.

#### Mark Osterback, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 853, 131 S. Ct. 112,

178 L. Ed. 2d 69,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6174.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.

Same case below, 23 So. 2d 113.
2017-1443.

#### State ex rel. Staats v. Stark Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus. On respondents’ motions to dismiss. Motions granted. Cause dismissed.

On respondent’s motion to strike memo in opposition to motions to dismiss. Motion denied. On relator’s motion to strike motion to dismiss. Motion denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
i i i i i i



### MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00198-CV

Maria MEDINA , Appellant

v. Randall Howard BENDELE and Benke Septic Systems, Appellees From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas Trial Court No. 06-08-25,379-CV Honorable Mickey R. Pennington, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 1, 2008 DISMISSED The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(2), 43.2(f). Costs of the appeal are taxed against the parties who incurred them. PER CURIAM
#### Landmesser v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review 108

01/04/2016

708 MAL (2015)

108

. Reconsideration Denied February 3, 2016.

Denied
No. 10M7.

#### Orlando A. Lee, Sr., Petitioner v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.

562 U.S. 819, 131 S. Ct. 373,

178 L. Ed. 2d 10,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6735.

October 4, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Same case below, 344 Fed. Appx. 843.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Santos Santiago, Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 35]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Eugene Oliver, J.), rendered August 11, 2014, as amended May 11, 2016 and April 28, 2017, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 20 years, unanimously reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

As in cases such as *People v Velez*(131 AD3d 129 [1st Dept 2015]), the court’s charge failed to convey that an acquittal on the top count of second-degree murder based on a finding of justification would preclude consideration of the remaining charges. We find that this error was not harmless and warrants reversal in the interest of justice *(see e.g. People v Kareem,*148 AD3d 550 [1st Dept 2017], *lv dismissed*29 NY3d 1033 [2017]). We have considered and rejected the People’s various arguments for affirmance.

Since we are ordering a new trial, we find it unnecessary to *507reach defendant’s remaining contentions.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Oing and Singh, JJ.
No. 09-11048.

#### D. Dean Ford, Petitioner v. Allegheny Ludlum.

562 U.S. 860, 131 S. Ct. 139,

178 L. Ed. 2d 81,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6247.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

*82Same case below, 363 Fed. Appx. 398.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NOS. 2-07-403-CR

	        2-07-404-CR

JOSEPH ALBERT DURANT	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	------------

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Appellant Joseph Albert Durant entered an open plea of guilty to two charges of burglary of a building and also pleaded guilty to the enhancements.  The trial court found Durant guilty and assessed his punishment at ten years’ confinement in each case to run concurrently.

	Durant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California2 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  Durant was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not do so.

	As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).  Because Durant entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Durant’s plea, error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after entry of the guilty plea.  See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666–67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

	We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief.  We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); accord Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

							SUE WALKER

							JUSTICE

PANEL:  LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  September 4, 2008
CAAP-12-0000373

#### State v. Otto

Affirmed
DLA Distribution Corpus Christi, Texas honors and remembers teammates lost during 2020
 
  By Matthew Mahoney, DLA Distribution Public Affairs
  Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Corpus Christi, Texas, recently set up a small memorial to honor and remember their teammates lost over the past year. “Our support services team put together a tribute for our former members that passed away while employed with DLA Distribution Corpus Christi, Texas,” said Joseph Murphy, support services division chief. A display case containing either American flags, or flags associated with military service of the individuals honored is completed with a small certificate. A poem on the certificate reads, “Until We Meet Again
We think about you always, we talk about you still.
You have never been forgotten you and never will.
We hold you close within our hearts and there you will remain.
To walk and guide us through our lives, until we meet again.” Members of the DDCT team memorialized include Augustus Farias, Clemencia Olivarez, Troy Stewart, Johnny Contreras Jr, Michael Daigle and Michael Wilson.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY>                                     1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                Dec-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                             1
<CASH>                                      3,081,253
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               86,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                13,635
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            3,305,377
<PP&E>                                      460,293
<DEPRECIATION>                              181,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              3,703,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       396,493
<BONDS>                                     101,842
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    28,385
<OTHER-SE>                                  3,177,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                3,703,909
<SALES>                                     591,375
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            591,375
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               3,537,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            19,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1,610,505
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,436,745)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,436,745)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,436,745)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (1.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (1.95)


</TABLE>
No. 09-1428.

#### Joseph Cornelius Ruddy, Jr., Petitioner v. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland.

562 U.S. 833, 131 S. Ct. 125,

178 L. Ed. 2d 33,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6409.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland denied.

Same case below, 411 Md. 30, 981 A.2d 637.
(July 7, 2017)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Tasker Spruill, Petitioner, v Warden of RNDC, Rikers Island, et al., Respondents.

[57 NYS3d 396]

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application for bail reduction upon Kings County indictment No. 13008/95 to release the petitioner on his own recognizance or to set reasonable bail.

Adjudged that the writ is sustained, without costs or disbursements, to the extent that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings to set reasonable bail upon Kings County indictment No. 13008/95, under the following conditions: (1) the petitioner shall remain within and shall not travel beyond the geographical limits of the City of New York, (2) the petitioner shall provide to the Of*560fice of the District Attorney of Kings County, in a form approved by the District Attorney, an affidavit stating that if the petitioner leaves the jurisdiction he agrees to waive his right to oppose extradition from any foreign jurisdiction, and (3) the petitioner shall wear an electronic monitoring bracelet with monitoring services to be provided by Secure Alert and paid for by the petitioner, and any violations shall be reported by Secure Alert to the Office of the District Attorney of Kings County and the petitioner shall be detained until such time as the alleged violation can be adjudicated before the Supreme Court, Kings County.

Hall, J.P., Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
#### Sacchetti, In re Estate of 29

08/30/2016

63 EAL (2016)

29

. Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 128 A.3d 273
No. 09-10878.

#### Norman Blake McKenzie, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 854, 131 S. Ct. 116,

178 L. Ed. 2d 71,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5833.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 29 So. 3d 272.
# Logistics Center in Yokosuka Completes Three-Year Pipeline Project  

/ Published Dec. 2, 2020
YOKOSUKA, Japan, 
Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Fleet Logistics Center (FLC) Yokosuka joined with Gilbane Building Company to complete a pipeline repair project at Defense Fuel Service Point (DFSP) Hakozaki. The completion of this three-year repair project involving nearly 230 personnel was celebrated in a ribbon-cutting ceremony and adds another chapter of Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Fleet Logistics Center (FLC) Yokosuka joined with Gilbane Building Company to complete a pipeline repair project at Defense Fuel Service Point (DFSP) Hakozaki.The completion of this three-year repair project involving nearly 230 personnel was celebrated in a ribbon-cutting ceremony and adds another chapter of command successes during 2020—a year which put NAVSUP FLC Yokosuka’s products and services to the test in supporting mission partners throughout the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility during the COVID-19 pandemic.“As a team, we made history. This pipeline repair project at DFSP Hakozaki is the first major overhaul since World War II,” said Capt. Edward Pidgeon, NAVSUP FLC Yokosuka commanding officer. “Our fuel infrastructure is now more resilient than ever and is protected against even the toughest natural disasters.”The $46 million project installed 25 24-ton seismic pipe anchors, enabling nine miles of pipeline to withstand total soil liquefaction in the event of a typhoon or tsunami. Further, integrity tests indicated the pipeline can endure an earthquake magnitude up to 9.0, after replacing degraded pipeline with more seismically resilient pipeline and expansion loops to provide pressure relief during pipeline flexing. These improvements will allow DFSP Hakozaki to continue to receive, store, handle and transfer petroleum products and bulk lube oil in the event of a natural disaster.In addition to the protections against natural hazards, DFSP Hakozaki refurbished 12 miles of pipeline, had 35% of existing pipes replaced and received a comprehensive inspection of all tanks and canals. This repair project is expected to extend system service life by 25 years.NAVSUP FLC Yokosuka is one of eight FLCs under Commander, NAVSUP. Headquartered in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, and employing a diverse, worldwide workforce of more than 22,500 military and civilian personnel, NAVSUP's mission is to provide supplies, services, and quality-of-life support to the Navy and joint warfighter.*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command website.*
No. 09-11469.

#### Fred T. Durrough, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 882, 131 S. Ct. 205,

178 L. Ed. 2d 123,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6961.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# DSCR holiday season officially kicks off with tree lighting

/ Published Dec. 9, 2021
RICHMOND, Va, 
The holiday season kicked off on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, Dec. 7.

Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. David Sanford and DLA Installation Management Richmond Site Director David Gibson lit a holiday tree on the front lawn of Building 34 on DSCR, which can be seen from Virginia Route 301 in Chesterfield County.

Due to COVID-19, there was less fanfare for the event this year. “Normally, we partner with Bensley Elementary School which is adjacent to our installation’s North Gate and the 5th graders perform holiday songs, but due to COVID-19 we are not able to gather and celebrate in our usual fashion,” Sanford said.

The last official tree lighting ceremony, which had around 500 participants including installation employees and elementary school children and staff, took place in 2019.

“Although we still can’t have the large ceremony with carols and refreshments we are used to, we felt it was still important to continue the tradition after a two-year hiatus due to the pandemic,” the commander said. “We hope we will be able to return to the large ceremony we’ve grown to enjoy over the years next year.”

DLA Installation Management Richmond is in charge setting up official installation lighting. “This is something our electricians and maintenance crew look forward to every year,” said Gibson. 

“Because of Phase 2 construction of the DLA Aviation Operations Center, we weren’t able to install lighted decorations on as many of the utility poles and streetlights this year, but we wanted to do something for the workforce on center, as well as the thousands of folks that drive along Route 301,” Gibson said. “Lighting the tree in front of Building 34 helps ring in the spirit of the holidays on the installation.”