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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Owens, J.), rendered May 21, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence of a term of imprisonment of 25 years to life.

Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to 20 years to life. As so modified, judgment affirmed.

Defendant voluntarily surrendered himself on November 30, 1981 for the homicide of one Michael Williams. At his trial, he testified that in the early morning of November 29, 1981, upon returning to his darkened apartment, he was trapped inside by Williams, who was burglarizing his apartment. According to defendant, he stabbed Williams during a struggle for a knife which the latter had dropped. The testimony of a forensic pathologist revealed that there were 11 separate stab or cut wounds on Williams’ body, although he was unable to discern in what order they were inflicted. There was also testimony that defendant and Williams knew each other and Williams’ hat and coat were found in the apartment, even though he was not wearing them when killed.

On this appeal, defendant challenges as error, *inter alia,*the court’s charge to the jury that “the defendant in this case, has raised the defense, affirmative defense of justification. The defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence his assertion of justification”. This charge was erroneous because the prosecution had the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Steele,*26 NY2d 526, 528; *People v Kennedy,*85 AD2d 673). Subsequently, however, the court cured the error by telling the jury that the burden of disproving justification was on the People and that it was not an affirmative defense. Although defendant continues to complain about the original error, following the curative instruction he *891made no request for further instructions or for a mistrial, and in the absence of such requests, the court “must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction” *(People v Williams,*46 NY2d 1070, 1071; *People v Baldo,*107 AD2d 751). In any event, the curative instruction dispelled any prejudice the original error might have created.

We do, however, conclude that the sentence was excessive to the extent indicated. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Thompson, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2396 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Imidacloprid pesticides. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2005 

Mr. COSTA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Imidacloprid 

pesticides. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IMIDACLOPRID PESTICIDES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.52 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Imidacloprid pesticides) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

7 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2396 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: REESTABLISHMENT OF THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS WI THIN THE 38 th J UDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA **: :**  **: :**  NO. 355 MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET

**AMENDED ORDER**  **PER CURIA M**  **AN D**  **NOW,** this day of 9th day of March , 201 5 , the Order dated May 9 , 2013 that Reestablished the Magisterial Districts of the 38 th Judicial District ( Montgomery County) of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is hereby **AME NDED**  as follows: Magisterial District 38 - 1 -28 shall include Hatfield Township Voting Districts 2 - 1, 2 -2, 3 - 1, 3 -2, 4 - 1, and 4 -2. The Order of May 9 , 2013 shall remain in effect in all other respects.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Docs EEO/Civil Rights







Quick Linksheadline bar ARS Civil Rights Office/aboutus/docs.htm?docid=1323 Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionhttp://www.eeoc.gov Historically Black Colleges and Universitieshttp://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/whhbcu/edlite-list.html 1890 Liaison Officershttp://www.agliaisons.usda.gov/Liaisonoff.htm Hispanic Serving Institutionshttp://www.hacu.net Tribal Collegeshttp://www.aihec.org/college.html Target Centerhttp://www.usda.gov/oo/target/ EEO Home


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7985
KARL X. BELFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus H. CHAPMAN, Correctional Officer; E. SMITH, Correctional Officer; MR. MAYES, Correctional Officer; D. R. LAWSON, Warden at Southampton Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-751-2) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karl X. Belfield, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court assessed a filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom , 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[No. 20495-9-II.

Division Two.

October 3, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Alvin C. Lowe, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kit-sap County, No. 96-8-00061-6, Leonard W. Kruse, J., entered February 26, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Bridgewater, J.
EXHIBIT 32.2





Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In connection with the annual report of West Bancorporation, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas R. Gulling, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of West Bancorporation, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: (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 West Bancorporation, Inc.








March 12, 2010








/s/ Douglas R. Gulling


Douglas R. Gulling


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer






29
Exhibit 21.1



LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

|Name of Subsidiary                     | Jurisdiction of | % of Ownership
|-------------------------------------- | --------------- | --------------
|                                       | Incorporation   |               
|CAI Investment, Inc.                   | United States   | 100%          
|                                       |                 |               
|Beijing Agritech Fertilizer Ltd.       | PRC             | 100%          
|                                       |                 |               
|Anhui Agritech Development Co. Ltd.    | PRC             | 100%          
|                                       |                 |               
|China Tailong Holdings Company Limited | Hong Kong       | 100%          
|                                       |                 |               
|Pacific Dragon Fertilizers Co. Ltd.    | PRC             | 90%           

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE

ANTHONY G. TAYLOR, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 4:16-CV-52-PPS-JEM

)

J P MORGAN CHASE, CHASE HOME )

FINANCE, )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. On September 21, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion

for Leave to File First Amended Answer and Affirmative Defense [DE 13]. Rather than file a

response, on October 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendants Affirmative Defenses

[DE 17]. On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed an identical Motion to Strike Defendants Affirmative

Defenses [DE 18]. 

The Court construes Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike as a response to Defendant’s Motion for

Leave. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to strike the document at [DE 17]

and to designate the document at [DE 18] as Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Leave

to File First Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses [DE 13]. 

Defendant shall reply, if desired, no later than 7 days from the date of this order.

SO ORDERED this 12th day of October, 2016.

s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00052-RL-JEM document 19 filed 10/12/16 page 1 of 1
* 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. 97-41278

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TANESHA BOLAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CR-91-1

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tanesha Bolar appeals from her convictions for narcotics and

firearm offenses. She argues that the evidence was insufficient

to support her convictions. We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     financial statements contained in the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form
     10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 1999, and is qualified in its
     entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,765,658
<SECURITIES>                                     1,269,621
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,874,845
<ALLOWANCES>                                           100
<INVENTORY>                                        150,279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,172,721
<PP&E>                                             226,926
<DEPRECIATION>                                      85,087
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,027,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,219,798
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           142,906
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,115,214
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,027,519
<SALES>                                            409,689
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   654,651
<CGS>                                              242,552
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      242,552
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,555,714
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    13,748
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27,552
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,184,915)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,184,915)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,184,915)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.19)



</TABLE>
#### Samuel D. BATES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-74807.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 7, 2011.

Samuel D. Bates, Sacramento, CA, pro se.

Janet A. Bradley, Esquire, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Bridget Maria Rowan, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appel-lee.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Samuel D. Bates appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of income tax deficiencies for years 2001 and 2002, and imposition of a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6662. He also appeals from the Tax Court’s imposition of sanctions under 26 U.S.C. § 6673. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. *See Comm’r v. Dunkin,*500 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

Bates’s contention that he was not subject to federal income taxes is frivolous. *See United States v. Nelson (In re Becraft),*885 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir.1989) (order); Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1. Bates does not otherwise challenge the Tax Court’s determination of income tax deficiencies, and thus has abandoned any such challenge. *See Cook v. Schriro,*538 F.3d 1000, 1014 n. 5 (9th Cir.2008) (issues not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned).

The Tax Court did not clearly err by finding that Bates was subject to the accuracy-related penalty for negligence under 26 U.S.C. § 6662(b). *See Sparkman v. Comm’r,*509 F.3d 1149, 1161 (9th Cir. 2007).

*791The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions under 26 U.S.C. § 6673 for Bates’s frivolous arguments. *See Wolf v. Comm’r,*4 F.3d 709, 716 (9th Cir.1993) (standard of review).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[No. 39625-1-I.

Division One.

October 13, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Charlene A. Carter, *Respondent,*and Clifford J. Carter, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 92-3-00994-7, Dale B. Ramerman, J., entered October 2, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Kennedy, A.C.J., and Webster, J.
**Exhibit      31.2**

**COMMUNITY      BANKS, INC.**

**RULE      13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION**

**(Chief      Financial Officer)**

| Date   | May                10, 2007 |   | /s/                Donald F. Holt        |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   |                        |   | Donald                F. Holt            |
|   |                        |   | Executive                Vice President  |
|   |                        |   | (Chief                Financial Officer) |
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 403 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the 

Molalla River in the State of Oregon, as components of the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. MERKLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 

segments of the Molalla River in the State of Oregon, 

as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Molalla River Wild 

5 and Scenic Rivers Act’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 403 IS

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SEG2 MENTS, MOLALLA RIVER, OREGON. 

3 Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

4 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(208) MOLALLA RIVER, OREGON.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The following seg8 ments in the State of Oregon, to be adminis9 tered by the Secretary of the Interior as a rec10 reational river: 

11 ‘‘(i) MOLALLA RIVER.—The approxi12 mately 15.1-mile segment from the south13 ern boundary line of T. 7 S., R. 4 E., sec. 

14 19, downstream to the edge of the Bureau 

15 of Land Management boundary in T. 6 S., 

16 R. 3 E., sec. 7. 

17 ‘‘(ii) TABLE ROCK FORK MOLALLA

18 RIVER.—The approximately 6.2-mile seg19 ment from the easternmost Bureau of 

20 Land Management boundary line in the 

NE1 21 ⁄4 sec. 4, T. 7 S., R. 4 E., downstream 

22 to the confluence with the Molalla River. 

23 ‘‘(B) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid ex24 isting rights, the Federal land within the 

25 boundaries of the river segments designated by 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 403 IS

1 subparagraph (A) is withdrawn from all forms 

2 of— 

3 ‘‘(i) entry, appropriation, or disposal 

4 under the public land laws; 

5 ‘‘(ii) location, entry, and patent under 

6 the mining laws; and 

7 ‘‘(iii) disposition under all laws relat8 ing to mineral and geothermal leasing or 

9 mineral materials.’’. 

10 SEC. 3. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS. 

11 Section 3(a)(102) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

12 (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(102)) is amended— 

13 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘SQUAW CREEK’’ 

14 and inserting ‘‘WHYCHUS CREEK’’; 

15 (2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

16 by striking ‘‘McAllister Ditch, including the Soap 

17 Fork Squaw Creek, the North Fork, the South 

18 Fork, the East and West Forks of Park Creek, and 

19 Park Creek Fork’’ and inserting ‘‘Plainview Ditch, 

20 including the Soap Creek, the North and South 

21 Forks of Whychus Creek, the East and West Forks 

22 of Park Creek, and Park Creek’’; and 

23 (3) in subparagraph (B), by striking 

24 ‘‘McAllister Ditch’’ and inserting ‘‘Plainview Ditch’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6297

WREN WILKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus H. PERSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:06-hc-02106-FL) Submitted: July 6, 2007 Decided: July 25, 2007 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wren Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Wren Wilkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Nos. 15402-5-III; 15403-3-III; 15404-1-III.

Division Three.

September 16, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Kurt Bauer, Jr., *Appellant.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for Spokane County, Nos. 95-1-01764-0, 95-1-01875-1 and 95-1-01970-7, Tari S. Eitzen, J., entered November 28, 1995. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Thompson, J., and Hutton, J. Pro Tern.