alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued by Teleconference 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

v. Record No. 2790-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

KENNETH LEE MAYS APRIL 30, 1996 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG 

Mosby G. Perrow, III, Judge 

 Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Elizabeth P. Murtagh, Assistant Public 

Defender (Office of the Public Defender, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Kenneth Lee Mays (appellee) was indicted for possession of 

cocaine in violation of Code § 18.2-250. Appellee filed a motion 

to suppress the cocaine in which he asserted the police officer 

stopped his vehicle without a reasonable suspicion of criminal 

activity. The trial court granted the suppression motion, and 

the Commonwealth appeals that ruling. 

 In Terry v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court held that 

"a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an 

appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of 

investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is no 

probable cause to make an arrest." 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968). "[I]f 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion 

that a person has committed a criminal offense, that person may 

be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or 

to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional 

information." Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816 (1985). 

"Justification for stopping an automobile does not depend on the 

subjective intent of the police," however. Bosworth v. 

Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 567, 570, 375 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1989). 

Compliance with the Fourth Amendment depends instead on "an 

objective assessment of an officer's actions in light of the 

facts and circumstances then known to him." Id. (quoting Scott 

v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 136 (1978)). 

 In an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order by the trial 

court suppressing evidence, we view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the prevailing party, granting to it all 

reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. We will not 

reverse the trial judge's decision unless it is plainly wrong. 

Commonwealth v. Grimstead, 12 Va. App. 1066, 1067, 407 S.E.2d 

747, 723 (1992). 

 The Commonwealth presented no evidence that narcotics were 

actually present, that the observed behavior was consistent with 

a narcotics transaction, or that any of the participants were 

connected in any way with narcotics. The testifying officer gave 

no objective reason why her observations led her to the 

conclusion that a sale of narcotics had occurred. Based on the 
- 3 - 

record, we cannot say that the trial judge was plainly wrong in 

his ruling, and we accordingly affirm the order of suppression. 

 Affirmed.
Case: 1:01-cv-06062 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/01 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cv-06062 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/01 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
Case: 1:01-cv-06062 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/01 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
Case: 1:01-cv-06062 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/01 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
Case: 1:01-cv-06062 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/01 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
Case: 1:01-cv-06062 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/01 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7732

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MARCUS EUGENE TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (4:05-cr-00009-WDK-JEB-28)

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Eugene Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Lisa Rae McKeel, Assistant United States Attorneys, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marcus Eugene Taylor appeals a district court order denying his motion for a sentence reduction submitted under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

See United States v. Taylor , No. 4:05-cr-00009-WDK-JEB-28 (E.D. Va., filed July 3, 2008; entered July 11, 2008). We note Taylor was not entitled to a resentencing hearing or a sentence below the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Dunphy , 551 F.3d 247, (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A] district judge is not authorized to reduce a defendant’s sentence below the amended guideline range.”). 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
Exhibit 99.5


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B)


OR RULE 15D-14 (B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE


ACT OF 1934 AND SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18


OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


In connection with the Annual Report of Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Bruce Flatt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.




By:/s/ J. Bruce FlattJ. Bruce FlattChief Executive Officer


March 31, 2016
#### THERESA C. CAGLIO, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. YELLOW CAB COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

December 17, 1960.

*Mr. Samuel L. Supniclc*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Meyer L. Salem*for the respondent.

Denied.
#### In the Matter of Barry Sammel, Doing Business as Our Place II, Appellant, v Angelo J. Aponte, as Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Affairs of the City of New York, Respondent.

dent. Judgement Supreme Court, New York County (George Smith, J.), entered on or about July 9, 1985, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, for the reasons stated by George Smith, J., at Special Term. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Fein and Asch, JJ.
Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:5755

Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:5756

Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:5757

Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:5758

Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:5759

Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:5760

Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:5761

Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:5762

Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:5763

Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:5764

Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:5765

Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:5766

Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:5767

Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:5768

Case: 1:02-cv-07771 Document #: 391-3 Filed: 07/15/11 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:5769
#### Dimarco LEWIS, Petitioner-Appellant v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-31090

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 18, 2011.

Dimarco Lewis, Angola, LA, pro se.

Andrew Milton Pickett, Assistant District Attorney, District Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent-Appel-lee.

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dimarco Lewis, Louisiana prisoner #466781, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his convictions for armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and two counts of attempted second-degree murder. A certificate of appealability was granted on the issue whether the district court erred by denying a claim that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to provide proper notice of an alibi witness, which resulted in this witness not being allowed to testify.

We must defer to a state habeas court’s determination of the merits of the prisoner’s claims unless the state decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” § 2254(d)(1) & (2). To obtain relief under § 2254, a state prisoner “must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possi*836bility for fairminded disagreement.” *Harrington v. Richter,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786-87, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and issues of law de novo. *Harrison v. Quarterman,*496 F.3d 419, 423 (5th Cir.2007).

Lewis has failed to provide any evidence from the witness herself showing that she was willing to testify and setting out the content of her expected testimony. In addition, the witness’s testimony, as alleged by Lewis, would have been relevant only to two of the four charges, the testimony would have been cumulative of earlier testimony, and the witness’s credibility could have been questioned based on her close family relationship with Lewis. Finally, several other witnesses identified Lewis as one of the perpetrators. Even if this court presumes that reasonable jurists could not disagree that counsel performed deficiently by failing to list this alibi witness, Lewis cannot show “beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement” that, if counsel had listed this witness and she had testified, the result of his trial would have been different. *See Harrington,*131 S.Ct. at 786-87; *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,094
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  135,947
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               144,041
<PP&E>                                       8,810,568
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,608,198
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,346,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,346,411
<SALES>                                        233,099
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               234,487
<CGS>                                          124,707
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  229,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,767
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,767
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,767
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,933
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,417
<PP&E>                                          30,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,162
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,284)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,212
<SALES>                                         29,716
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,716
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,739
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,122
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,049
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,073
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,073
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 91

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 21, 1997.

Resolved,

SECTION 1. CONTINUING EXPENSES OF STANDING AND SELECT

COMMITTEES.

There shall be available from the applicable accounts of

the House of Representatives such amounts as may be necessary for continuing expenses of standing and select committees of the House (other than the Committee on Government

Reform and Oversight) for the period beginning on April 1,

1997, and ending on May 2, 1997, on the same terms and

conditions as amounts were available to such committees for

the period beginning at noon on January 3, 1997, and ending

at midnight on March 31, 1997, pursuant to clause 5(f) of

rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 2. EXPENSES OF COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

AND OVERSIGHT FOR ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the One Hundred

Fifth Congress, there shall be paid out of the applicable ac-
2

•HRES 91

counts of the House of Representatives, in accordance with

this section, not more than $20,020,572 for the expenses (including the expenses of all staff salaries) of the Committee

on Government Reform and Oversight.

(b) FIRST SESSION LIMITATION.—Of the amount provided for in subsection (a), not more than $11,702,573 shall

be available for expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on January 3, 1997, and ending immediately

before noon on January 3, 1998.

(c) SECOND SESSION LIMITATION.—Of the amount provided for in subsection (a), not more than $8,317,999 shall

be available for expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on January 3, 1998, and ending immediately

before noon on January 3, 1999.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized by the committee involved, signed by the chairman of such committee, and approved in the manner directed

by the Committee on House Oversight.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

Amounts made available under this resolution shall be

expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the

Committee on House Oversight.
3

•HRES 91

SEC. 5. RESERVE FUND FOR UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES.

There is hereby established a reserve fund of $7,900,000

for unanticipated expenses of committees for the One Hundred Fifth Congress. Amounts in the fund shall be paid to

a committee pursuant to an allocation approved by the Committee on House Oversight.

SEC. 6. ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY.

The Committee on House Oversight shall have authority

to make adjustments in amounts under section 2, if necessary

to comply with an order of the President issued under section

254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

Act of 1985 or to conform to any reduction in appropriations

for the purposes of such section 1.

SEC. 7. OFFSET OF INCREASE IN COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

Any net increase in the aggregate amount of expenses of

committees for the One Hundred Fifth Congress over the aggregate amount of funds appropriated for the expenses of

committees for the One Hundred Fourth Congress shall be

offset by reductions in expenses for other legislative branch

activities.

Attest:

Clerk.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Agency for International Development

# AGENCY:

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

# ACTION:

Notice of public availability.

# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) hereby advises the public of the availability of the FY 2017-2020 Service Contract Inventory found at                         *https://www.acquisition.gov/​service-contract-inventory.*                         The inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OMB/OFPP). The USAID service contract inventory data is included in the government-wide inventory posted in the above link and the government-wide inventory can be filtered to display the inventory data for the Agency. USAID has also posted its FY 2017-2019 SCI Reports at:                         *https://www.usaid.gov/​results-and-data/​budget-spending/​official-service-contract-inventory.*                         The FY 2019 Report includes the plan for analyzing the FY 2020 inventory.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Eileen Simoes, Chief, Policy Division, Bureau for Management Policy, Budget and Performance, U.S. Agency for International Development, (202) 921-5090,                         *esimoes@usaid.gov.*

Susan C. Radford,

Management and Program Analyst, Bureau for Management Policy, Budget and Performance, U.S. Agency for International Development.

[FR Doc. 2021-16491 Filed 8-2-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116-02-P
#### In the Matter of Dupree Harris, Petitioner, v Joseph T. Smith, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 918]-

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

A correction officer heard a commotion from behind him while a group of inmates were returning to their cells. When he turned around, he observed petitioner and another inmate in close contact exchanging words and clenching their fists. He noticed that the other inmate had a torn shirt with blood on it and his hand was bleeding. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with engaging in violent conduct, and he was found guilty of the charge following a tier II disciplinary hearing. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The correction officer who authored the misbehavior report testified that he observed petitioner and the other inmate engaged in a standoff after exchanging words and believed that they had had a physical altercation. This testimony, together with the detailed misbehavior report, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Garcia v Bertone,*91 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2012]; *Matter of Green v Bradt,*79 AD3d 1566, 1567 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 709 [2011]). Petitioner’s testimony and that of the other inmate that there was no physical altercation between the two presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Williams v Fischer,*89 AD3d 1333, 1333 [2011]; *Matter of Barnes v Prack,*87 AD3d 1216, 1217 [2011]). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb respondent’s determination.

Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Kavanagh, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.