alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Kamal C., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent. Presentment Agency, Appellant.

*[946*NYS2d 647]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the Presentment Agency appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated August 24, 2011, which dismissed the petition, with prejudice. The appeal brings up for review the granting, after a hearing, of that branch of the respondent’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain identification testimony.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

This juvenile delinquency proceeding arises out of an incident in which the complaining witness allegedly was accosted by a group of four boys who attempted to rob him, and was punched by two of them. Approximately three weeks after the incident, during a showup procedure at a police station, the complaining *939witness identified the respondent as one of the perpetrators. The Presentment Agency conceded that the showup identification should be suppressed at the fact-finding hearing, and the Family Court conducted a hearing on the issue of whether there was an independent source for an in-court identification of the respondent by the complaining -witness.

Where a showup identification is shown to be unduly suggestive, an in-court identification by the witness who made the showup identification also must be suppressed unless the prosecution establishes by “clear and convincing evidence” that an in-court identification would be “neither the product of, nor affected by, the improper pretrial showup” *(People v Rahming,*26 NY2d 411, 416 [1970] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see People v*Gethers, 86 NY2d 159, 163 [1995]). Here, the Family Court’s determination that the Presentment Agency failed to meet this burden was supported by the record *(see People v Lesiuk,*81 NY2d 485, 490 [1993]; *People v Garcia,*255 AD2d 522, 523 [1998]).

Accordingly, upon the Presentment Agency’s representation that the deprivation of the witness’s in-court identification of the respondent had rendered the sum of proof available to it insufficient as a matter of law, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition with prejudice. Rivera, J.P., Hall, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Waterford Gaming Finance Corp.
All amounts are unaudited.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                          90
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.1

The Board of Directors and Shareholders

Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc.

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-46155) pertaining to the Long-Term Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-88466) pertaining to the 2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan, and the Registration Statement (Form S-3
No. 333-144672) of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc., of our report dated October 29, 2010 relating to the unaudited consolidated interim financial statements of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. that is included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.



|                       |  |                      
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------
|                       |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|                       | 
|New Orleans, Louisiana |  |                      
|October 29, 2010       |  |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Howard HANEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-10184

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 22, 2011.

James Howard Haney, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

*157Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

James Haney, federal prisoner # 22122-077, was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court determined that he was a career offender and sentenced him to 360 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release. This court is now presented with Haney’s appeal from the denial of his request for a writ of mandamus to compel the government to tender specific performance of the plea agreement.

Under Haney’s view, the plea agreement called for a certain base offense level and sentence. He avers that the prosecutor acted in contravention of those portions by agreeing that the base offense level provided by the career offender enhancement was proper. Additionally, he contends that that statement ran afoul of the agreement’s implicit provision that the prosecutor not argue for any sentencing enhancements.

Initially, it is uncertain whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider the merits of Haney’s motion, which challenged his sentence and plea agreement. Such claims are typically considered in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. *See Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir.2001); *United States v. Cates,*952 F.2d 149, 151 (5th Cir.1992). Haney has not received this court’s authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, nor do his arguments on appeal show that he should be permitted to bring such a motion.

Nevertheless, even assuming *arguendo*that Haney properly raised his arguments in his request for a writ of mandamus, he still has not shown “that his right to issu-anee of the writ is clear and indisputable.” *See United States v. Williams,*400 F.3d 277, 280 (5th Cir.2005). Consequently, he has pointed to no error in connection with the disputed judgment.

Haney’s request for appointed counsel is DENIED, and the judgment is 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles D. McAllister, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mazzei, J.), rendered February 8, 1984, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. *746The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must, defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied —*US —, 105 S Ct 327; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). Complainant testified that she returned to her house at approximately 12:45 p.m. on July 23, 1983, and, upon entering her bedroom, saw a man climbing through the window. She stared at the intruder for at least half a minute before running to a neighbor’s house to call the police. Moments later, defendant, who matched the description given to the police, was apprehended only four blocks from the scene of the crime. He was positively identified at a showup and was placed under arrest.

Defendant argues, *inter alia,*that this out-of-court identification should have been suppressed. On these facts, we find that argument unpersuasive *(see, People v Brnja,*70 AD2d 17, *affd*50 NY2d 366; *People v Acevedo,*102 AD2d 336).

Equally unpersuasive is defendant’s argument that a reversal is warranted because the People failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. For the first time on appeal, defendant notes that he has become aware that police records of the 911 call pertaining to the burglary indicated that the suspect wore blue pants, whereas he was wearing tan pants. This material is dehors the record.

We find nothing in the record to support defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground he was deprived an opportunity to appear before the Grand Jury.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### Pete S. BRYANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-6125.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 4, 2011.

Pete S. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Pete S. Bryant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bryant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 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.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7772

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ANTHONY MCDONALD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District

Judge. (CR-95-266, CA-97-1258-1)

Submitted: April 30, 1999 Decided: May 25, 1999

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony McDonald seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. McDonald, Nos. CR-95-

266; CA-97-1258-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 1998). We deny McDonald’s

motions to stay the appeal and to remand to the district court. 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
**Exhibit
23.1**
 
  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  Our
report on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Manhattan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for
the years then ended and on the consolidated statements of operations, changes
in stockholders' equity (deficiency) and cash flows for the period from August
6, 2001 (date of inception) to December 31, 2004, included in this Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, is dated March 18, 2005. We
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report in the following
registration statements previously filed by the Company with the Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933: the registration
statements on Forms S-3 with SEC File Nos. 333-34379, 333-35079, 333-65393,
333-40916 and 333-49036, and the registration statements on Forms S-8 with SEC
file Nos. 333-15807, 333-112888, 333-112889 and 333-48531.
 
 /s/  J.H. Cohn
LLP
 
 Roseland,
New Jersey
 March 28,
2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM HISPANIC
TELEVISION NETWORK, INCORPORATED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF 12/31/00 AND
THE RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE
TWO YEARS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          87,235
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  141,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,008,287
<PP&E>                                       5,753,032
<DEPRECIATION>                                 979,993
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,840,960
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,365,488
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    275,774
<COMMON>                                       908,226
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,708,528)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,840,960
<SALES>                                        620,955
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               620,955
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               35,165,124
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                87,470
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,880,528
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (38,512,167)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (38,512,167)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (38,512,167)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)


</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.1








**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**











In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of IBSG International, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
      Rivers, President and 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:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





Date:
                May 11, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Michael
              RiversMichael
              RiversPresident,
                Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 12


DECORATIVE HOME ACCENTS, INC.
("SUCCESSOR") AND PREDECESSOR COMPANIES
Computations of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(In Thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      SUCCESSOR                    SUCCESSOR                              
                                                        YEARS                     EIGHT MONTHS        PREDECESSOR   
                                                        ENDED                        ENDED            FOUR MONTHS   
                                                     DECEMBER 31,                  DECEMBER 31,      ENDED APRIL 30,
                                             ---------------------------
                                                1996               1995                1994                1994      
                                             ---------           -------             -------              ------
<S>                                          <C>                 <C>                 <C>                  <C>
Earnings (loss) before income taxes          $(113,609)          $(2,013)            $ 7,805              $2,747
Add:
   Interest expense                             19,916            12,281               4,647                 (16)
                                             ---------           -------             -------              ------
Earnings available for fixed charges         $ (93,693)          $10,268             $12,452              $2,731
                                             =========           =======             =======              ======
Fixed charges:
   Interest expense                             19,916            12,281               4,647                 (16)
                                             =========           =======             =======              ======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                  --              0.84 x              2.68 x                --
                                             =========           =======             =======              ======
</TABLE>


--   Not meaningful.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.115



                      EXTENSION LETTER FOR PROMISSORY NOTES
                          DATED AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998


         This Extension Letter hereby amends that certain Promissory Note dated
as of July 31, 1997 for $1,000.00, by and between First Light Entertainment
Corporation (therein called "Obligor") and Steven D. Brown, (therein called
"Holder") and extends the due date of said Promissory Note for a period of 365
days with all principal and any accrued but unpaid interest due on or before
December 31, 1999.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Extension Letter to
be duly executed under the seal on the date and year first above written.

                                       "OBLIGOR"



                                       By: /s/ J. ERIC VAN ATTA
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         First Light Entertainment Corporation
                                         1245 Fowler St., N.W.
                                         Atlanta, Georgia 30318

"HOLDER"



    /s/ STEVEN D. BROWN
------------------------------
        Steven D. Brown
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10877

Summary Calendar

 

CHRISTOPHER COWAN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CV-291-C

- - - - - - - - - -

May 27, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Cowan, Texas prisoner # 403565, appeals the

district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. 

To the extent that Cowan is required to obtain a certificate of

appealability (COA) in order to appeal the district court’s

order, we conclude that Cowan has not made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). Without deciding whether a COA is required, we

find no abuse of discretion in the reasoning adopted by the
No. 97-10877

- 2 -

district court. Cowan v. Johnson, No. 1:96-CV-291-C (N.D. Tex.

Jul. 15, 1997); see Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107

(5th Cir. 1991); Watson v. Graves, 909 F.2d 1949, 1552 (5th Cir.

1990). Further, we find that Cowan’s appeal is frivolous, and

accordingly, we DISMISS it pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. COA DENIED.