alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 10-01087 Doc 36 Filed 07/22/10 Entered 07/22/10 11:02:26 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 8
Case 10-01087 Doc 36 Filed 07/22/10 Entered 07/22/10 11:02:26 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 8
Case 10-01087 Doc 36 Filed 07/22/10 Entered 07/22/10 11:02:26 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 8
Case 10-01087 Doc 36 Filed 07/22/10 Entered 07/22/10 11:02:26 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 8
Case 10-01087 Doc 36 Filed 07/22/10 Entered 07/22/10 11:02:26 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 8
Case 10-01087 Doc 36 Filed 07/22/10 Entered 07/22/10 11:02:26 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 8
Case 10-01087 Doc 36 Filed 07/22/10 Entered 07/22/10 11:02:26 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 8
Case 10-01087 Doc 36 Filed 07/22/10 Entered 07/22/10 11:02:26 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 8
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elaine Thomas, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered on January 19, 1983, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. *526Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.
# C_2017379EN.01000601.xml

| 10.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 November 2017

(2017/C 379/06)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1630 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,75 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4422 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88633 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7355 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1589 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4535 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,528 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 312,08 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2346 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6400 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,4962 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5144 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4779 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0701 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6715 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5819 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 299,91 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,5306 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7193 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5385 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 729,57 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8790 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,597 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,0726 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,495 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7762 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,2416 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,5600 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1630

JPY

Japanese yen

131,75

DKK

Danish krone

7,4422

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88633

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7355

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1589

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4535

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,528

HUF

Hungarian forint

312,08

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2346

RON

Romanian leu

4,6400

TRY

Turkish lira

4,4962

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5144

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4779

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0701

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6715

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5819

KRW

South Korean won

1 299,91

ZAR

South African rand

16,5306

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7193

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5385

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 729,57

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8790

PHP

Philippine peso

59,597

RUB

Russian rouble

69,0726

THB

Thai baht

38,495

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7762

MXN

Mexican peso

22,2416

INR

Indian rupee

75,5600

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22

- 10943 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Christian Lamar Porter,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:20

- CR

- 49

- 1

**_______________ _______________**  Before **Jones, Haynes,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Christian Lamar Porter pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2)

. Relying on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , 567 U.S. 519 (2012), h e argues for the first time on appeal that § 922(g)(1) exceeds the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Cla use and is

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 26, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10943 Document: 00516835235 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2023No. 22

- 10943

2 thus unconstitutional. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and an alternative request for an extension of time to file its brief. Porter correctly concedes that his arguments challenging the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar , 733 F.3d 143, 145

– 46 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Daugherty , 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. De Leon , 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999). He raises the arguments to preserve them for further review. Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , the alternative motion for an extension of time to fi le a brief is **DENIED** , and the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 22-10943 Document: 00516835235 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2023
PAUL V. DEGENHART

, Appellant,

v.

SCBT

, A SOUTH CAROLINA STATE CHARTERED BANKING CORPORATION D/B/A FIRST FEDERAL

, A DIVISION OF SCBT.

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3374

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 12, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Virginia Norton , Judge

. Paul V. Degenhart, pro se , Appellant.

E. Robert Meek of Foley & Lard n er LLP, Jacksonville; James A. McKee and Benjamin J. Grossman of Foley & Lardner, Tallahassee; and Harrison Wesley Pool e of Poole & Poole, P.A., Fernandina Beach , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, C.J., WOLF and ROBERTS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Pekar, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a *599judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mayer, J.), rendered April 29, 1982, convicting him of rape in the first degree (two counts), sodomy in the first degree (two counts), assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant’s contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Under the facts of this case we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction as to the unpreserved contentions. Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 4 0 2 8 5 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. R I G O B E R T O R A M I R E Z

- R O S A S , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 5 : 0 9

- C R

- 6 2 0

- 1

B e f o r e J O L L Y , O W E N , a n d H A Y N E S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : * T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t R i g o b e r t o R a m i r e z R o s a s h a s m o v e d f

o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f

i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f

o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , a n d U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. F l o r e s , 6 3 2 F

. 3 d 2 2 9 ( 5 t h C i r
. 2 0 1 1 )

. R a m i r e z - R o s a s h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. W e h a v e r e v i e w e d

c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f a n d t h e r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t e d t h e r e i n
. W e

c o n c u r w i t h c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t t h a t t h e a p p e a l p r e s e n t s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w
. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s

U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 19 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-40285 Document: 00511450222 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2011N o
. 1 0

- 4 0 2 8 5

G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

.

2 Case: 10-40285 Document: 00511450222 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2011
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Caremark Rx, Inc. (the Corporation) for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Corporation, certifies 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 the Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 2, 2006



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    E. Mac Crawford 
|E. Mac Crawford        
|Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas A. Culver, Jr., Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 832]

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered July 6, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1]), defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We reject that contention. Defendant’s contention “ ‘survives his guilty plea only to the extent that defendant contends that his plea was infected by the alleged ineffective assistance’ ” *(People v Garner,*86 AD3d 955, 956 [2011]; *see People v Gleen,*73 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 773 [2010]). “In the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she receives an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of [defense] counsel” *(People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]), and upon our review of the record we conclude that defendant was afforded such meaningful representation here. “ ‘To the extent that defendant contends that defense counsel was ineffective *1428because he coerced defendant into pleading guilty, that contention is belied by defendant’s statement during the plea colloquy that the plea was not the result of any [force] or coercion’ ” (Garner, 86 AD3d at 956), and by his statement “that he was satisfied with the representation of defense counsel” *(People v Strasser,*83 AD3d 1411, 1411 [2011]). Under the circumstances of this case, we reject defendant’s contention that defense counsel was ineffective when defense counsel allegedly induced defendant to plead guilty by misinforming him of his sentence exposure *(see generally Ford,*86 NY2d at 404). Misinformation as to the possible sentence to which a defendant is exposed “is [a] factor which must be considered by the court [in determining whether a plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary and thus whether the plea was infected by the misinformation, rendering defense counsel ineffective], but it is not, in and of itself, dispositive” *(People v Garcia,*92 NY2d 869, 870 [1998]; *see People v Morrison,*78 AD3d 1615, 1616 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 834 [2011]). Indeed, “[w]hether a plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary is dependent upon a number of factors[,] including the nature and terms of the agreement, the reasonableness of the bargain, and the age and experience of the accused” *(Garcia,*92 NY2d at 870; *see Morrison,*78 AD3d at 1616). To the extent that defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is based on matters outside the record, it must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 *(see People v Johnson,*81 AD3d 1428, 1428 [2011], *lv denied*16 NY3d 896 [2011]; *People v Joyner,*19 AD3d 1129, 1130 [2005]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
Case: 1:01-cv-06204 Document #: 220 Filed: 04/16/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1899
Case: 1:01-cv-06204 Document #: 220 Filed: 04/16/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:1900
Case: 1:01-cv-06204 Document #: 220 Filed: 04/16/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:1901
#### Commonwealth *vs.*Silas N. Phelps.

Franklin.

December 14, 1911.

December 15, 1911.

Present: Rugg, C. J., Morton, Hammond, Braley, & Sheldon, JJ.

*Practice, Criminal,*Appeal.

Under B. L. c. 219, § 32, an appeal by the defendant in a criminal case from an order of the Superior Court imposing a sentence raises only the question whether any error of law is apparent upon the record.

Indictment fob mubdeb, found and returned on July 12, 1910. The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and a decision, of this court overruling his exceptions is reported in 209 Mass. 396. After the filing of the rescript, the defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, which was denied. On appeal to this court, the order denying the motion in arrest of judgment was affirmed in a decision reported *ante,*78.

In the Superior Court on October 25, 1911, *Fessenden,*J., made an order imposing upon the defendant the sentence of death by means of a current of electricity, to be executed during the week beginning December 31,1911.

From this order the defendant appealed.

E. L. c. 219, § 32, is as follows: “A defendant who is aggrieved by a judgment of the Superior Court which is founded upon matter of law apparent upon the record in any criminal proceeding, except a judgment upon a plea in abatement, may appeal therefrom to the Supreme Judicial Court.”

No counsel appeared for the defendant and no brief was filed for him.

*J. M. Swift,*Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

On December 15,1911, the following rescript was issued by order of this court:

Appeal in criminal eases from the Superior Court to this court lies only for error of law apparent on the record. Plainly no error of law is apparent on this record. It follows that the sentence stands and is to be executed as if no appeal had been taken.

*Judgment affirmed; sentence to stand.*
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

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

 

I, Allan Rowley, Chief Financial Officer of MGTCapital Investments, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to thebest of my knowledge:

 

(1)    the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)    the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
|                  | By:                     | /s/ ALLAN ROWLEY |
|-----------------------|-------------------------|------------------|
|                  | Allan Rowley            |
|                  | Chief Financial Officer |
|                  |                    |
| November 5, 2008 |                    |

 

----
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
 Meat Safety and Quality: Clay Center, NE
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    USMARC Home
                    USMARC Research Units
                        Genetics and Animal Breeding
                                    Livestock Bio Systems
                                    Nutrition, Growth and Physiology
                                    Animal Health GenomicsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Clay Center, Nebraska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Meat Safety and Quality People & Locations







Julie K Dyer
                        Meat Safety and Quality

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Lab Technician
                        Phone: (402) 762-4381
                        
                        
                        Fax: (402) 762-4149(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerard Morton, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.), rendered December 7, 1981, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant failed to raise at trial his objections to the adequacy and content of the jury instructions and accordingly has not preserved his claims for appellate review *(see, People v Colon,*54 NY2d 913; *People v Smith,*87 AD2d 640). In any event, a jury instruction which outlines a permissive inference of intent from conduct, based on all the circumstances, is proper *(see, People v Getch,*50 NY2d 456). Further there is no general requirement that the court specifically relate intoxication to the particular intent requirement of each of the crimes charged *(see, People v Holliday,*38 NY2d 763; *People v Leary,*64 AD2d 825).

Any issue with respect to the conduct of the court during the trial was also not preserved for review since trial counsel made no objection whatsoever to the remarks now challenged. Where defense counsel believes the Trial Judge has interfered or prejudiced the defendant’s case by his conduct, counsel has the responsibility of making objection at trial in some form to give the Judge an opportunity to correct the problem *(see, People v Charleston,*56 NY2d 886). In any event, upon this record, the court’s remarks did not prejudice defendant.

Finally, it is well settled that the granting or denial of an adjournment by a Trial Judge is a matter of discretion *(see, People v Singleton,*41 NY2d 402). In the instant case, under all the circumstances, the court, after granting an initial continuance, was justified in declining to grant defendant a second adjournment of the trial in order to enable him to produce a witness. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Fiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.