alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 09-11223.

#### Doudou B. Janneh, Petitioner v. Regal Entertainment Group.

562 U.S. 804, 131 S. Ct. 162,

178 L. Ed. 2d 5,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7664.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-31307 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERT DIXON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-188-N

-------------------- June 20, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.,
PER CURIAM: * Robert Dixon seeks to appeal the denial of his F ED . R. C RIM . P. 12(b)(2) motion in forma pauperis (IFP) and, therefore, challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. Our inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves `legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983)(citation omitted).No. 01-31307 -2- Dixon argues that the district court improperly denied his motion to reconsider his Rule 12(b)(2) motion because under the “mailbox” rule his motion was timely. He also argues that his Rule 12(b)(2) motion was timely because his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was pending. Dixon further contends that due to ineffective assistance of counsel the court should find his claim was not waived under F ED . R. C RIM . P. 12(f). In his reply brief, Dixon asks if this court can reinstate his prior out-of-time notice of appeal. Dixon’s appeal does not involve legal points arguable on the merits. First, Dixon misunderstands the ruling that he has appealed. The district court did consider the merits.

In United States v. Cotton , 122 S. Ct. 1781 (2002), the Supreme Court considered a challenge to the indictment based on Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), raised on direct appeal. The Supreme Court held that a defective indictment does not deprive a court of jurisdiction and overruled prior law to the contrary. Cotton , 122 S. Ct. at 1785. Consequently, Rule 12(b)(2)’s provision that defenses and objections based on the indictment’s failure to show jurisdiction or to charge an offense “shall be noticed by the court at any time during the pendency of the proceedings” is meaningless where the defendant argues that the indictment was defective. This court does not reach Dixon’s request that it “reinstate” his attempt to file an out-of-time appeal because itNo. 01-31307 -3- was raised for the first time in Dixon’s reply brief. See Cinel v. Connick , 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, Dixon’s appeal does not raise any legal point arguable on its merits. See Howard , 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997).
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
No. 10-6211.

#### Safarra Kimmons, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 972, 131 S. Ct. 484,

178 L. Ed. 2d 306,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8018.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 481 Fed. Appx. 84.
#### M.V., an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian, et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[52 NYS3d 362]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered June 23, 2015, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was proper in this action where *642the infant plaintiff was injured when, while he was participating in a game of tag, a fellow classmate “accidentally bumped” into him, causing him to crash into the wall of the gymnasium. Plaintiff’s own testimony as to how the accident occurred demonstrates that no additional supervision could have prevented his injury (see *Jorge C. v City of New York,*128 AD3d 410, 411 [1st Dept 2015]).

Furthermore, the infant plaintiff’s accident was caused by the “spontaneous act of one student running directly into another student in an effort to avoid being tagged,” which could not reasonably have been foreseen or prevented, and thus would not result in the school being held liable *(Lizardo v Board of Educ. of the City of N.Y.,*77 AD3d 437, 438 [1st Dept 2010]).

The affidavit of plaintiff’s expert contained opinions not based in the record (see *Chung v New York City Bd. of Educ.,*136 AD3d 608, 609 [1st Dept 2016]), and was otherwise insufficient to raise a triable issue as to the adequacy of defendants’ supervision or the safety of the facilities (see *David v County of Suffolk,*1 NY3d 525 [2003]; *Greenberg v Peekskill City School Dist.,*255 AD2d 487, 488 [2d Dept 1998]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
# DLA Distribution Commander delivers Holocaust Remembrance Day message

/ Published May 6, 2024
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
DLA Distribution Teammates,

The Holocaust Days of Remembrance week is observed from May 5th to May 12th. Holocaust Remembrance Day is observed on May 6th, which corresponds to the 27th day of Nisan on the Hebrew calendar and the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

To guide us in remembering the victims of the Holocaust, DLA Distribution EEO has created the attached Holocaust Days of Remembrance newsletter.

This month, as we somberly observe the Holocaust, please take the time to read the attached information. As we remember the victims of the Holocaust, we are reminded why it is imperative to confront antisemitism and other forms of hate-based conduct to build a better future for us all.

I, along with Mr. Knight, thank you and your families for all you do to support the organization, our Warfighters, and our great Nation.
Launch/Recovery

The DJI Inspire 1 is a vertical take-off and land UAS. This allows the platform to take off from 

virtually any flat surface. For our purposes, the UAS will be placed on a flat open area free of 

congestion and at least 100 feet of clearance. The UAS operator will perform a pre-flight 

checklist before each flight.

When flying in class “D” airspace, PIC will contact local tower (MCASNR)Marine Corps Air 

Station New River, and coordinate with local air traffic. PIC will give location and altitudes of 

intended flight operations and contact tower after operations have ended. 

While the actual launch and recovery will take place at the same location the day of the flight, 

the launch and recovery location will vary and will be determined that day depending on the 

mission.

Pre-Flight Checklist

Power on Inspire 1

Ensure link to Controller

Transform to landing mode

Power off Inspire 1

Attach and lock Camera and Gimbal Insert Camera Card and format

Power on Inspire 1

Ensure Link to Controller

Firmware up to date

Battery Charged

Calibrate Compass if needed

Inspire placed in safe launch area Propellers Tight and Locks applied Area clear of people and 

other hazards.

Take-Off

Warn bystanders of take off

Safe to Fly on Pilot App Confirmed Initiate launch sequence

Hover for 20 seconds

Inspect Inspire 1 for defects Confirm all movement directions Confirm battery level

Monitor signal strength

Keep line of sight

Recover

Warn bystanders of incoming Inspire 1

Check to see if landing area is clear of obstructions and hazards

Bring Inspire 1 to hover at approximately 5 foot

Manually lower landing gear

Land Inspire 1 after clearing area and assuring landing gear is fully lowered Allow rotors to 

come to complete stop

Post-Flight
Landing zone clear and safe Stop recording

Power down Inspire 1 Remove Rotors

Remove Camera and Gimbal Power on Inspire 1 Transform to travel mode Power off Inspire 1
No. 10-6135.

#### Leslie Charles Cohen, Petitioner v. Dudley Terrell, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 998, 131 S. Ct. 518,

178 L. Ed. 2d 366,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8418.

November 1, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16211]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 19029, 
and 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent 
Decree in United States v. William Davis, et al., Civ. Action No. 90-
0484-T, was lodged in the United States District Court for the District 
of Rhode Island on May 18, 1998. The proposed Consent Decree resolves 
the United States' claims against Power Semiconductors, Inc. and Swan 
Engraving Company (``Settling Defendants''), under Sections 106 and 
107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
Liability Act (``CERCLA''), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), concerning 
response action at the Davis Liquid Waste Superfund Site located in 
Smithfield, Providence County, Rhode Island (the ``Davis Site'').
    Under the terms of the Consent Decree the Settling Defendants are 
required to pay $74,375 to the United States in partial reimbursement 
of the United States' past and future costs. Swan Engraving Company's 
share of this amount, $63,750, will be paid in three equal payments 
over two years. In addition, the Settling Defendants are jointly and 
severally responsible along with United technologies Corp. (``UTC'') 
and other previous settlers for the source control portion of the 
remedy at the Site.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, written comments relating to 
the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General for the Environmental and Natural Resources 
Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should 
refer to United States v. William Davis, et al., Civ. Action No. 90-
0484-T, DOJ #90-11-2-137B.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney, District of Rhode Island, Westminster Square 
Building, 10 Dorrance Street, 10th Floor, Providence, Rhode Island 
02903; at the Region I Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 90 Canal Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02203; and at the 
Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW 4th Floor, Washington, DC 
20005, (202) 624-0892. Copies of the Consent Decree may be obtained in 
person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW, 
4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, In requesting a copy, please enclose a 
check in the amount of $11.00 (25 cents per page reproduction costs) 
payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resource Division.
[FR Doc. 98-16211 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tylik Williams, Also Known as Victor Ramos, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 797]

*761Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.), rendered December 17, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a prosecution witness could be considered an accomplice as a matter of fact, whose testimony required corroboration. However, the subject witness was, at most, an “accessory after the fact,” whose testimony needs no corroboration under CPL 60.22 *(People v Dygert,*229 AD2d 735, 736 [1996]; *People v Sacco,*199 AD2d 288, 289 [1993]). Accordingly, an accomplice corroboration charge would not have been warranted *(see People v Young,*235 AD2d 441, 442 [1997]; *People v Brown,*221 AD2d 270, 271 [1995]; *People v Montgomery,*178 AD2d 663 [1991]). Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
NO. 07-06-0268-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	OCTOBER 27, 2006

		______________________________

	IN THE MATTER OF MACKENZIE AMELIA COOPER AND

	MICHAEL WAYNE BERRY

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 72,590-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

			ON MOTION TO DISMISS

	Michael Wayne Berry, appellant, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because he no longer wishes to pursue it.  No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).   No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

						Mackey K. Hancock
2017-0779.

#### Tronzo v. Lu-Jean Feng Clinic, L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 105044. Appellants’ motion for emergency stay denied.

French and Fischer, JJ., dissent and would accept the cause and grant the motion for emergency stay.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
#### Com. v. Martin 32

03/15/2016

950 MAL (2015)

32

. Justice EAKIN and DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 94
#### In the Matter of Kathy C., Respondent, v Alonzo E., Appellant.

[69 NYS3d 19]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about December 19, 2016, which denied respondent father’s motion to vacate his default in a proceeding which, after a hearing, granted petitioner maternal grandmother’s application for modification of a prior custody and visitation order, granted her sole legal and physical custody of the subject child, and permitted her to relocate to South Carolina with the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that the father failed to substantiate his claims of a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense are supported by the record. The father’s incarceration did not constitute excusable default *(see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Kastriot D.,*101 AD3d 574 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*21 NY3d 853 [2013]). Further, he failed to seek vacatur until approximately six months after his release from incarceration *(see Matter of Christopher James A. [Anne Elizabeth Pierre L.],*90 AD3d 515 [1st Dept 2011], *lv dismissed*18 NY3d 918 [2012]).

The father also failed to present evidence of a meritorious defense to the petition, and the maternal grandmother demonstrated a change in circumstances since the prior custody order *504was entered and that her proposed modification would be in the child’s best interest *(see Matter of Johnny Eugene P. v Michelle K.P.,*140 AD3d 624 [1st Dept 2016]; *Manuel John M. v Lisa Rossi M.,*125 AD3d 407, 408 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*25 NY3d 904 [2015]).

Contrary to the father’s argument, even assuming at a rehearing he would proffer evidence regarding a strong bond between him and the child, the fact that he had relinquished parenting responsibilities for the entirety of the child’s life, coupled with his history of significant domestic violence, would nonetheless have merited a finding of extraordinary circumstances *(see Matter of Sharon B. v Tiffany P.,*143 AD3d 573 [1st Dept 2016]). Following the finding of extraordinary circumstances, the court properly found that it was in the child’s best interest to award sole custody to the maternal grandmother and grant her permission to relocate with the child to South Carolina *(see Matter of Christopher E.C. v Ivana K.S.,*143 AD3d 420 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanstar, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Krakoff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge,:



|/s/ROBERT L. KRAKOFFRobert L. Krakoff
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

15

---

QuickLinks
# DLA Aviation hosts NDIA during 2023 DLA Supply Chain Alliance Conference and Exhibition

/ Published May 5, 2023
Richmond, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency Aviation welcomed DLA Land and Maritime and the National Defense Industrial Exhibition to Richmond, Virginia for the DLA Supply Chain Alliance Conference and Exhibition May 3 and 4.

DLA Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Sean Tyler kicked off the conference, held at the Greater Richmond Convention Center.

Tyler spoke about the crucial role of logistics support in Aviation and the overall Defense Department.

“From each of my duty stations, I have experienced the importance and need for logistics support,” Tyler said. “History is a testament to many military campaign successes and failures due solely to the type of logistical support provided. One doesn’t need to search deeply to see world-wide issues today.”

Featured presenters included flag officers from the Defense Department and industry leaders with expertise in logistics and acquisition, who provided critical perspective across the DOD supply chain.

These presentations, along with breakout sessions that focused on current supply chain challenges and collaboration with DLA, reflected the theme of the event, “Building Resilient Supply Chains, Revitalizing Domestic Manufacturing, and Fostering Growth.”

This is the first year for the DLA Supply Chain Alliance Conference and Exhibition. This event combines the DLA Aviation Industry Day and the DLA Land and Maritime Supplier Conference into one yearly event. Its location will alternate between Richmond, Virginia, and Columbus, Ohio.

New to the conference this year were breakout sessions co-presented by government and industry leaders. The dual perspectives facilitated healthy discussions and problem-solving potential among attendees.

Day two began with opening remarks from Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, who invited the audience to engage and discuss best practices for defense manufacturing, and let attendees know that Virginia is the number one state for defense investment.

Youngkin closed his remarks by saying Virginia is ready to grow, ready to adapt, and ready to be there as a foundational column to the nations’ defense teams.

Tyler closed out the conference with recognition for the quality of presentations and discussions among leaders and attendees.

“As I walked through the presentations, breakout sessions and offline discussions, I know participants listened and shared a plethora of useful information,” Tyler said. “We have captured many challenges and actions to collaboratively work on over the course of the next 12 months. As I stated in my opening remarks, there are issues and challenges, all of which can be overcome by the exuberance demonstrated in this conference.”
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Dan W.
Denney Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial Officer of
Genitope Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:  1.
    
    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the
Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and2.
    
    The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 26th
day of March 2004. /s/ Dan W. Denney Jr.  Dan W. Denney Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
Acting Principal Financial Officer This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of Genitope Corporation under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective
of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
# Family members of early DSCR landowner pay respects to their ancestors  

/ Published May 23, 2022
RICHMOND, Va., 
In 1797, Richard Gregory, one of the wealthiest landowners in Chesterfield County, Virginia, purchased 1,000 acres of land Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, sits on today. On this land he built Manor House, now known as the Bellwood House. It’s one of the oldest houses in Chesterfield County and is listed as a national historic landmark.

Descendants of Gregory, along with their spouses, visited DSCR May 19. Jimmy Parrish, chief of Defense Logistics Agency’s Installation Management Richmond’s Environmental Management Division accompanied them. During the visit, they were taken on a tour, which included seeing the construction of Phase II of the DLA Aviation Operations Center, experiencing the Bellwood elk, touring the newly renovated Bellwood House and visiting the Gregory Cemetery, where 14 known graves, including Richard Gregory’s, are enclosed behind the Bellwood House.

Richard Gregory, who lives in Powhatan County, Virginia and is a 6th generation Gregory, said he is grateful to the DSCR workforce for continuing to honor his family’s legacy.

“I’m really thrilled this is here and the installation has embraced this place and call it your own and take care of it,” Gregory said.