alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnathan Johnson, Also Known as Jonathan Johnson, Appellant.

[47 NYS3d 912]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 30, 1992 *(People v Johnson,*181 AD2d 914 [1992]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 20, 1988.

Ordered that the application is denied.

*826The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
### IN THE CO URT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENN ESSEE AT KNOX VILLE Ass ig ne d o n B rie fs Aug us t 2 4, 2 01 0

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . JO SHUA LEE ARP

D i r e c t A p p e a l f

r o m t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t f o r S e v i e r C o u n t y N o s . 1 4 1 6 7

- I I I , 1 4 2 3 8

- I I I R e x H e n r y O g l e , J u d g e

N o . E 2 0 1 0

- 0 0 3 7 1

- C C A

- R 3

- C D

- F i l e d S e p t e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 0

J O S E P H M

. T IP T O N , P

. J

. , c o n c u r r i n g

.

I c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t s r e a c h e d i n t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n

. H o w e v e r , I w o u l d a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t b e c a u s e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s f

a i l u r e t o i n c l u d e t h e t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t i n t h e r e c o r d a n d
t h e a t t e n d a n t p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s w e r e c o r r e c t

. S e e S t a t e v

. O o d y , 8 2 3 S

. W

. 2 d 5 5 4 ( T e n n

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 1 ) ( h o l d i n g t r i a l c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g p r e s u m e d

c o r r e c t i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n a d e q u a t e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l )

. T h e 1 9 8 9 S e n t e n c i n g A c t , a s

a m e n d e d
, r e q u i r e s a s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r e v i d e n c e r e c e i v e d a t t h e t r i a l

. T

. C

. A

. § 4 0

- 3 5

- 2 1 0 ( b ) ( 1 )

. A b s e n t t h e t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e f o r u s t o d o a d e n o v o r e v i e w o f t h e

m a t t e r s r e l e v a n t t o s e n t e n c i n g

.

________________________________ _ _ _ _ JO S E P H M

. T IP T O N
, PR E SID IN G JU D G E
# C_2016191EN.01004701.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Rouffaud v EEAS

(Case F-59/13 RENV) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Referral back to the Tribunal after annulment - EEAS staff - Member of the contract staff - Auxiliary member of the contract staff - Reclassification of auxiliary contract as a contract of indefinite duration - Refusal))

(2016/C 191/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Thierry Rouffaud (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application to have his successive fixed-term employment contracts reclassified as a contract of indefinite duration and to have his period completed as an auxiliary member of the contract staff recognised as a period of service completed as a member of the contract staff.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in Cases F-59/13 and F-59/13 RENV; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in Cases F-59/13 and F-59/13 RENV;

| 3. | Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs incurred in Case T-457/14 P and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Thierry Rouffard in Case T-457/14 P. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs incurred in Case T-457/14 P and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Thierry Rouffard in Case T-457/14 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013, p. 14 (original Case F-59/13).

1

---
No. 10-6641.

#### Jorge A. Martinez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1017, 131 S. Ct. 538,

178 L. Ed. 2d 395,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8433,

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 588 F.3d 301.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6091

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RYAN BRANDON LITTLE, a/k/a Casino,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:18-cr-00143-AWA-RJK-2)

Submitted: December 22, 2020 Decided: December 29, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ryan Brandon Little, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ryan Brandon Little appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to appoint 

counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Little, No. 2:18-cr-00143-

AWA-RJK-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16893]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-406-017]


CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 19, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 16, 1998, CNG Transmission Corporation 
(CNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet:

2nd Sub. 2nd Revised Sheet No. 250

    CNG requests an effective date of January 5, 1998 for its revised 
tariff sheet.
    CNG states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
Commission's directive to refile Sheet No. 250 to reflect CNG's 
correction of the tariff sheet containing Section 25 in its March 30, 
1998 filing. CNG states that Sheet No. 250 contains the Table of 
Contents for the General Terms and Conditions of CNG's tariff. CNG has 
revised the pagination of its Table of Contents to reflect the tariff 
sheets previously approved by the Commission in this docket.
    CNG states that copies of its filing have been mailed to parties to 
the captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16893 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2013336EN.01003102.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/31

---

Action brought on 27 June 2013 — ZZ v ENISA

(Case F-63/13)

2013/C 336/69

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment, firstly, of the decision to dismiss the applicant and, secondly, of the decision, adopted after the judgment of the CST in Case F-118/10, to appoint another agent to the post of accountant. Finally, compensation for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of ENISA rejecting the applicant’s claim, and the other contested decisions, namely the decision of ENISA of 4 September 2012 dismissing the applicant and the decision of ENISA of 9 October 2012 appointing Mr X. to the post of accountant in the applicant’s place; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of ENISA rejecting the applicant’s claim, and the other contested decisions, namely the decision of ENISA of 4 September 2012 dismissing the applicant and the decision of ENISA of 9 October 2012 appointing Mr X. to the post of accountant in the applicant’s place;

| — | Order ENISA to pay the applicant, in respect of all the abovementioned unlawful acts, the sum of EUR 100 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order ENISA to pay the applicant, in respect of all the abovementioned unlawful acts, the sum of EUR 100 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm;

| — | Order ENISA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order ENISA to pay the costs.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Sanders, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 900]

Appeal from a judgment of Erie County Court (D’Amico, J.), entered October 9, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of rape in the first degree ánd criminal contempt in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial is granted on counts one and three of the indictment.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]) and criminal contempt in the first degree (§ 215.51 [b] [v]), defendant contends that County Court erred in allowing the People to impeach their own witness. We agree. CPL 60.35 (1) “allows a party in a criminal proceeding to impeach his [or her] own witness with a prior inconsistent statement, signed and in writing, when that witness ‘gives testimony upon a material issue of the case which tends to disprove the position of such party’ ” *(People v Maerling,*64 NY2d 134, 141 [1984]; *see People v Saez,*69 NY2d 802, 804 [1987]). “The testimony [that] is sought to be impeached . . . must be elicited during direct examination by the [party seeking to impeach his or her own witness]” *(People v Tirado,*203 AD2d 309, 309-310 [1994], *lv denied*83 NY2d 915 [1994]; *see*CPL 60.35 [1]; *People v Rodwell,*246 AD2d 916, 918 [1998]; *People v Zenger,*134 AD2d 640 [1987], *lv denied 70*NY2d 1012 [1988]). In this case, the testimony that was sought to be impeached was elicited on cross-examination by defense counsel, however, and thus impeachment by the prosecutor on redirect examination was improper *(see People v Fuller,*66 AD2d 27, 36-37 [1979], *affd*50 NY2d 628 [1980]; *Zenger,*134 AD2d at 640).

Contrary to the contention of the People, the scope of defense counsel’s cross-examination did not exceed the scope of direct examination such that the People’s witness was transformed into a defense witness *(cf. Maerling,*64 NY2d at 141-142; *People v Dolan,*172 AD2d 68, 75-76 [1991], *lv denied*79 NY2d 946 [1992]). In any event, in a criminal case, “a party may prove through cross-examination any relevant proposition, regardless *1421of the scope of the direct examination” *(People v Kennedy,*70 AD2d 181, 186 [1979], citing *People v Fowler,*46 AD2d 838 [1974], *affd sub nom. People u Broadie,*37 NY2d 100 [1975], *cert denied*423 US 950 [1975], and *People v Tice,*131 NY 651 [1892]; *see e.g. People v Rowe,*236 AD2d 637, 638 [1997], *lv denied*89 NY2d 1100 [1997]; *People v Gonzalez,*131 AD2d 873, 874 [1987], *lv denied*70 NY2d 800 [1987]). Defense counsel’s questioning elicited relevant information concerning the nature of the relationship between defendant and the complainant and the actions of the complainant following the alleged rape. Because the evidence of guilt in this case is not overwhelming, it cannot be said that the error is harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). In view of our determination, we see no need to address defendant’s remaining contentions. Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Kehoe, JJ.
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 Quarterly Report of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart Grayston, President and Principal 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 my knowledge:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/S/ STUART GRAYSTON                    
|Stuart Grayston                        
|President (Principal Executive Officer)
|May 14, 2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Otis Boone, Appellant.

Submitted March 27, 2017;

decided March 30, 2017

Motion by NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.

Judge Wilson taking no part.
No. 10-5954.

#### Carl L. Rogers, Petitioner v. New York.

562 U.S. 969, 131 S. Ct. 475,

178 L. Ed. 2d 302,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7947.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Judicial Department, denied.

Same case below, 70 App. Div. 3d 1340, 894 N.Y.S.2d 313.
No. D-2553.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of John Michael Gassaway.

562 U.S. 816, 131 S. Ct. 407,

178 L. Ed. 2d 272,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7554.

October 4, 2010.

John Michael Gas-saway, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
No. 10-7124.

#### Rigoberto Molina-Uriostegui, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1074, 131 S. Ct. 672,

178 L. Ed. 2d 500,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9327.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 603.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16727]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 3090-0200]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Entitled Sealed 
Bidding

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA.

ACTION: Notice of request for public comments regarding reinstatement 
to a previously approved OMB clearance (3090-0200).

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Office of Acquisition Policy has submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and 
approve a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection 
requirement concerning Sealed Bidding. A request for public comments 
was published at 63 FR 19921, April 22, 1998. No comments were 
received.

DATES: Comment Due Date: July 24, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Matera, Office of GSA Acquisition 
Policy (202) 501-1224.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect 
of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing 
this burden, should be submitted to: Edward Springer, GSA Desk Officer, 
Room 3235, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and to Marjorie Ashby, General 
Services Administration (MVP), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Purpose

    The GSA is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 
reinstate information collection, 3099-0200, Sealed Bidding. The 
information requested regarding an offeror's monthly production 
capability is needed to make progressive awards to ensure coverage of 
stock items.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 20; annual responses: 20; average hours per response: 
.10; burden hours: 3.3.

Copy of Proposal

    A copy of this proposal may be obtained from the GSA Acquisition 
Policy Division (MVP), Room 4011, GSA Building, 1800 F Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20405, or by telephoning (202) 501-3822, or by faxing 
your request to (202) 501-3342.

    Dated: June 16, 1998.
Ida M. Ustad,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Acquisition Policy.
[FR Doc. 98-16727 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-61-M
No. 10-6872.

#### John L. Lewis, Petitioner v. Herb Jackson, Superintendent, Brown Creek Correctional Institution.

562 U.S. 1094, 131 S. Ct. 801,

178 L. Ed. 2d 536,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9570.

December 6, 2010.

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

Same case below, 390 Fed. Appx. 262.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                        19,931  
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 108,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                  3,390
<INVENTORY>                                   211,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              355,027
<PP&E>                                        231,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                19,844
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                870,754
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         172,562
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                    75,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  870,754
<SALES>                                       164,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              164,325
<CGS>                                         137,242
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 137,242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              31,519
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            11,985
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (15,009)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  933
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (15,942)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (15,942)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0 
        

</TABLE>
2017-0271.

#### State v. Thompson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 105126.
No. 10-5867.

#### Elizabeth A. Chan, Petitioner v. Department of Justice.

562 U.S. 1045, 131 S. Ct. 597,

178 L. Ed. 2d 437,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8819.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 143.
# Cherry Point’s Troutner named DLA Distribution Employee of the Quarter

/ Published Aug. 5, 2015
CHERRY POINT, North Carolina, 
Patrick Troutner, distribution process worker at Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Cherry Point, N.C., has been named one of DLA Distribution’s Employees of the Quarter for third quarter, fiscal year 2015.

According to his supervisor, Troutner is integral to the distribution’s night shift, supporting the Navy’s Fleet Readiness Center East.  “Patrick is a dedicated and dependable employee, and his positive attitude and self-starting approach allow him to provide top support to his team members and our customers,” said Bob Brandt, Retail Division supervisor.

In addition to stowing materiel, Troutner pulls and issues up to 80 picks per shift. He is proactive in verifying all materiel labels remain intact, legible and able to be scanned. Brandt says Troutner frequently and enthusiastically takes on additional workload as team members take leave.  

Troutner’s work ethic extends beyond mission work, as he regularly takes the initiative to independently collect and organize the recyclables to support a more environmental friendly workplace. He maintains good housekeeping skills and takes a personal interest in safety issues within his work center, reporting and following up on any safety concerns such as leaks and broken equipment.

In addition to his outstanding work ethic and commitment, Troutner serves as a pillar in his community. He volunteers at the city of New Bern Recreation Department where he coaches young disabled children. He is also involved in the Big Brother/Big Sister program, and works with senior citizens in many local churches. 

“Mr. Troutner continually displays exceptional dedication and distinguishes himself among his peers. His outstanding efforts reflect great credit upon himself and the mission and vision of DLA Distribution to support its worldwide customers,” said Brandt.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID EMPSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 117 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID EMPSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 118 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 2019, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal are 

DENIED.
No. 10-162.

#### J. Z., Petitioner v. New Jersey.

562 U.S. 961, 131 S. Ct. 460,

178 L. Ed. 2d 288,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7942.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied.