alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:1672
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:1673
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 3 of 23 PageID #:1674
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 4 of 23 PageID #:1675
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 5 of 23 PageID #:1676
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 6 of 23 PageID #:1677
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 7 of 23 PageID #:1678
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 8 of 23 PageID #:1679
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 9 of 23 PageID #:1680
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 10 of 23 PageID #:1681
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 11 of 23 PageID #:1682
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 12 of 23 PageID #:1683
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 13 of 23 PageID #:1684
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:1685
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 15 of 23 PageID #:1686
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 16 of 23 PageID #:1687
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 17 of 23 PageID #:1688
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 18 of 23 PageID #:1689
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 19 of 23 PageID #:1690
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 20 of 23 PageID #:1691
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 21 of 23 PageID #:1692
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 22 of 23 PageID #:1693
Case: 1:01-cv-01646 Document #: 258 Filed: 10/20/04 Page 23 of 23 PageID #:1694
#### Georgia and Florida Railway Company *v.*Stapleton.

January 16, 1915.

Hill, J.

1. A ground of a motion for a new trial which assigns error on the refusal to exclude evidence, but fails to set out either literally, or in substance such evidence, is insufficient to raise any question for decision by this court.

2. A ground of a motion for new trial which assigns error in the admitting of evidence “over objection,” but which does not show what objection was made to the evidence offered, is insufficient to invoke a ruling by this court.

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the. Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent,*

*47Action for damages. Before Judge Rawlings. Emanuel superior court. September 6, 1913.

*Saffold & Jordan,*for plaintiff in error.

*O’Steen & Wallace*and *Williams & Bradley,*contra.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 1, 2015

s0624p 

# Order

Clerk July 1, 2015

151199

_________________________________________

SC: 151199

In re COH, ERH, JRG, and KBH, Minors. COA: 312691

Muskegon CC Family Division:

2011

- 007780

- AF;

2011

- 007781

- AF;

2011

- 007782

- AF;

2011

- 007783

- AF

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 4, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MIGUEL ESPINO-VALVERDE, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50257 

D.C. No. 3:16-cr-02835-BEN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 12, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Miguel Espino-Valverde appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-50257 

Espino-Valverde contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in 

light of his personal characteristics, including his mental health issues, and the fact 

that he has not committed any non-immigration offenses since 1996. The district 

court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed Espino-Valverde’s sentence. 

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “The weight to be given the 

various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.” 

United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009). The aboveGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors and the totality of circumstances, including Espino-Valverde’s 

six prior removals from the United States and the 37-month and 46-month 

sentences he received for his two previous immigration offenses. See United 

States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Moreover, contrary to Espino-Valverde’s argument, the court’s erroneous

assumption that he had previously received a fast-track departure does not make 

his sentence substantively unreasonable. After that assumption was corrected, the 

court granted a fast-track departure, and nevertheless concluded that a 46-month 

sentence was warranted. The record reflects that the court considered EspinoValverde’s mitigating arguments and adequately explained the sentence. See 

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JOHN KEHR, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued September 12, 1960

Decided October 31, 1960.

*382
      *Mr. William A.*O’Brien, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant *(Mr. Lawrence A. Whipple,*Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney; *Mr. Ralph P. Messano,*First Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel).

*Mr. Michael PL. Hochman*argued the cause for defendant-respondent *(Mr. Abraham Miller,*attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Francis, J.

The defendant, who is under indictment for murder, applied to the County Court for admission to bail and the motion was granted. We gave the State leave to appeal from the order.

The principles of law governing the issue involved appear in the opinion of this court in *State v. Konigsberg,*33 *N. J.*367.

At the hearing on the application neither party offered affidavits or the testimony of witnesses. The Prosecutor made representations in open court as to what evidence is available and would be offered at the trial to show that the accused *383is guilty of first degree murder. The trial court declined to accept the representations as competent to demonstrate that the proof was evident or the presumption great within the contemplation of *Article*1, *far.*11, of the 1947 *Constitution.*Therefore, since the indictment lacked support of the required probative force, he felt obliged under the cited clause to release Kehr in bail.

In *Konigsberg*we held that representations of the Prosecutor as to the evidence he has and will produce at the trial to establish that the accused is guilty of first degree murder are not sufficient to overcome the constitutional right to bail. Consequently, the trial court was correct in admitting Kehr to bail on the record before him.

In this case also, the observation must be made that if the representations of the Prosecutor had been submitted in the form of affidavits of the proper and competent witnesses, denial of the application for release on recognizance would have been justifiable.

Eor the reasons expressed in *Konigsberg*the same course would be pursued here, *i. e.,*an affirmance of the order granting bail and a remand to the County Court to give the Prosecutor an opportunity to supply the proof. We have been advised, however, that trial of the indictment has just been completed. The matter of bail having become moot, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

*For dismissal*— Chief Justice Weintbaub, and Justices Jacobs, Eeanois, Pkoctok, Hall and Schettino — 6.

*Offosed*— None.
#### Ann M. Castronova, Appellant, v Gary Castronova, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Appeal unanimously dismissed as moot. (Appeal from order of Monroe County Family Court, Corbett, J. — blood-grouping test.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Wolverine Tube, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Harold M. Karp, Principal Executive Officer of Wolverine Tube, Inc., 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 and belief:

(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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Wolverine Tube, Inc. and will be retained by Wolverine Tube,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ Harold M. KarpHarold M. KarpPrincipal Executive OfficerPresident and Chief Operating OfficerJuly 9, 2007
# Official Journal C 72A/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 72A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 635 March 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 72A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 635 March 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2020/C 72 A/01 | Notice of open competitions – EPSO/AD/375/20 – Danish-language (DA) lawyer-linguists (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/376/20 – Greek-language (EL) lawyer-linguists (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/377/20 – French-language (FR) lawyer-linguists (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/378/20 – Croatian-language (HR) lawyer-linguists (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/379/20 – Polish-language (PL) lawyer-linguists (AD 7) | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2020/C 72 A/01

Notice of open competitions – EPSO/AD/375/20 – Danish-language (DA) lawyer-linguists (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/376/20 – Greek-language (EL) lawyer-linguists (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/377/20 – French-language (FR) lawyer-linguists (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/378/20 – Croatian-language (HR) lawyer-linguists (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/379/20 – Polish-language (PL) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
1 

# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

O FFICE OF 

### S PECIAL 

### M ASTERS



### No. 14

- 860 V

Filed: October 16, 2015

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ANTONIO DEFELICE, * UNP UBLISHED

*

Petitioner, * Special Master Hamilton

- Fieldman

*

v. *

* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Bilateral Vision

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Loss; Ruling Regarding Timing of O nset.

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Lawrence Joseph Disparti , Disparti Law Group, PA, Holiday, FL , for Petitioner.

Heather Lynn Pearlman

, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING REGARDING FINDING OF FACT 1

On September 17, 2014, Antonio Defelice (“Petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

. 2 Petitioner alleged that, as a result of receiving

an influenza (“flu” ) vaccination on October 1, 2012 , he suffered from permanent bilateral vision

loss

.

During a status conference held on July 22 , 2015, the un dersigned observed that the

part ies’ e xperts disagree about the timing of onset of Petitioner’s vision loss , and determined that

a date of onset should be established before the case proceeds to an assessment of causation

. See

1 Because this ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned

intends to post this order on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance

with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 291 3 (codified

as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 and note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a

party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information that satisfies the

criteria in § 300aa

- 12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent wi th the rule requirement, a motion for

redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees

that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be

deleted from public acces s.

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42

U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 10 et seq. (hereinafter Vaccine Act or the Act ). Hereafter, individual section

references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.2 Order, July 23, 2015, at 1. Among other things, the undersigned di rected the parties to brief the

onset issue. Id. at 1

- 2. Petitioner filed his onset brief on October 6, 2015; Respondent filed her

onset brief on October 14, 2015. This case is now ripe for a factual finding regarding the timing

of onset of Petitioner’s bilateral vision loss.

For the reasons set forth in Respondent’s October 14, 2015 brief, the undersigned now

finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, t hat Petitioner’s symptoms first occurred no later than

October 3, 2012.

The Special Master hereby enters this finding of fact. The Special Master makes no

conclusion as to the significance of this in the context of Petitioner’s claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Special Master
S. 1211

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

An Act

To provide permanent authority for the administration of au pair programs.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR AU PAIR PROGRAMS.

Section 1(b) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to extend au pair

programs’’, approved December 23, 1995 (Public Law 104–72; 109

Stat. 776) is amended by striking ‘‘, through fiscal year 1997’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN FAULKNER , on be ha l f of him se lf and a ll othe rs sim ila

rly situa te d , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. ADT SEC UR ITY SER

VIC ES, INC .; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17124 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00968-JSW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Je ffre y S. White , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, SILVER

M AN, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. John Fa u lkne r a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to a m e nd his c om pla i nt following a

pre vious re m and. Faulk

n e r v . ADT Se c . Se rv

s., Inc . , 706 F.3d 1017 (9th C ir. 2013). W e a ffirm . 

# FIL ED D EC 11 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng le ave to a

m e nd a s futile . The ne wly

a lle ge d c l a im

doe s not re lat e ba c k to theorigina l c om pla int unde r R ule 15(c )(1)(B ) be c a

use it a rise s out of a diffe re nt se rie s of phone c a lls tha n the c a lls a lle ge d in the origina l c om pla int. Se eOja v . U.S. Army C orps of Eng’rs , 440 F.3d 1122, 1134-35 (9th C ir. 2006) (holding tha t a Priva c y Ac t

c l a im pre m ise d on a diffe re nt disc losure of pe rsona l inform at ion did not re late ba c k to theorigina l c om pla i nt). As thedistric t c ourt c orre c tly rule d, a m e ndm e nt would befutile be c a use the ne w c la im

would beba

rre d by the sta tue of lim i tations. De u t

sc h v . Turne r C orp. , 324 F.3d 692, 718 n.20 (9th C i r. 2003) (a m e ndm e nt is futile

if the c la im will beba

rre d by the sta tute of lim ita

tions). AFFIRM E D.

2
<TABLE>
<S>     <C>            <C>           <C>           <C>         <C>           <C>

                                                                                                     EXHIBIT 11.1
UNIFIED FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATION



                                                         SIX MONTHS ENDED                  THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                             JUNE 30,                           JUNE 30,
                                                   -----------------------------      ----------------------------
                                                      2002              2001              2002           2001
                                                   -----------       -----------      -----------      -----------

INCOME AVAILABLE TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS
     Net loss....................................$    (870,963)  $      (37,632)  $      (863,916)$     (273,478)
                                                    -----------      -----------     ------------     -----------

CALCULATION OF COMMON STOCK
     Common shares outstanding at beginning
        of period................................    2,877,634         2,880,028         2,877,634      2,880,028
                                                   -----------       -----------       -----------      ---------
     Acquisition of shares during period.........       18,662                --            18,662             --
                                                   -----------       -----------       -----------      ---------
        Common shares used in basic calculation..    2,858,972         2,880,028         2,858,972      2,880,028
                                                   -----------       -----------       -----------      ---------

     Common stock equivalent of dilutive options.           --                --                --             --
                                                   -----------       -----------       -----------      ---------
        Common shares used in fully diluted
          calculation............................    2,858,972         2,880,028         2,858,972      2,880,028
                                                   -----------       -----------       -----------      ---------

LOSS PER SHARE
--------------
     Basic....................................... $      (0.30)     $      (0.01)     $      (0.30)   $    (0.09)
                                                  ============       ===========       ============    ==========
     Fully diluted............................... $      (0.30)     $      (0.01)     $      (0.30)   $    (0.09)
                                                  ============       ===========       ============    ==========

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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                          DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                    506,149
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          702,068
<PP&E>                                                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          1,368,474
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      85,591
<BONDS>                                                    50,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                   11,359
<OTHER-SE>                                              1,221,524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            1,368,474
<SALES>                                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           10,971
<CGS>                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               6,809
<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>                                                4,162
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0



</TABLE>