alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PD-0567-18 & PD-0568-18 & PD-0569-18

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 6/5/2018 11:23 AM

Accepted 6/5/2018 3:00 PM

DEANA WILLIAMSON

CLERK

 FILED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 6/5/2018 DEANA WILLIAMSON, CLERK
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Theodis Eugene GOODMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-15552

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 2, 2007.

David Jonathon Joffe, Joffe & Joffe, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Patricia D. Barksdale, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before BIRCH, BLACK, and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

David J. Joffee, appointed counsel for Theodis Eugene Goodman, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Morse’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS E ASTLAND , T EXAS J UDGMENT

Rose Core
, * From the 362nd District Court of Denton County, Trial Court No. 2011

- 40013

- 362

.
Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00040

- CV * February 27 , 2015

Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J

. now merg ed into Citibank , N.A., (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Bailey, J. , and McCall, sitting by assignment ) (Willson, J.
, not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there
is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Rose Core

.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Littlejohn, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), rendered February 15, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, attempted grand larceny in the third degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant was charged with various crimes arising out of two unrelated incidents in the City of Poughkeepsie on April 4, 1983. The first count, charging the defendant with robbery in the third degree, alleged that he forcibly stole a sum of currency from David Ramdeen between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. on the above date. The second and third counts, charging attempted grand larceny in the third degree and petit larceny, respectively, alleged that the defendant attempted to steal a sum of currency and stole a digital watch from Harold Rumsey at approximately 5:00 p.m. on that day.

Both complaints testified at the trial. Mr. Ramdeen identified the defendant as the man who accosted him, but Mr. Rumsey was unable to do so. Mr. Rumsey had previously selected the defendant out of a lineup, but the police officer who conducted the procedure testified that Mr. Rumsey was unsure of his identification because the defendant did not smile. Mr. Rumsey indicated to the police that the perpetrator had "a gold tooth or something gold in his mouth”. The defendant, however, was examined by a dentist on the day after the crimes, and was found to have no gold fillings or broken teeth.

Thus, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was far from overwhelming. Moreover, the Trial Judge erred when she denied the defendant’s request that the jury be instructed that the two incidents were separate and distinct, and that evidence of guilt as to one of the incidents may not be considered as evidence of guilt as to the other incident *(see,*1 CJI [NY] 5.39 p 239). Because the court refused to so charge, there exists the very real danger that the jury improperly considered the evidence against the defendant cumulatively *(see,*
      *711
      *People v Colon,*87 AD2d 826; *People v Harris,*51 AD2d 937). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

The defendant’s other contentions are without merit. Rubin, J. P., Lawrence, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32(B)

                            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 the Annual Report of Murray United Development Corp.
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending July 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Anthony Campo, Chairman of the
Board and Chief Financial and Accounting 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 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 result of
              operations of the Company.


Date:  October 25, 2005              / s / Anthony Campo

                                           ANTHONY CAMPO,
                                           Chairman of the Board and
                                           Chief Financial or Accounting Officer
#### EDWARD L. GREEN, *ET AL.,*PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS, v. BELL CLEANERS, RESPONDENT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 65 *N. J. Super.*311.

*Messrs. Lenox, Giordano & Lenox*and *Mr. Richard J. S. Barlow, Jr.,*for the petitioner.

*Mr. David Roslceim,, Mr. Jacob L. Baile*and *Mr. Seymour B. Jacobs*for the respondent.

April 17, 1961.

Granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and consolidated statements of operations found on pages 3 and
4 of the Company's Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended August 31, 1997, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                    7,092
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                               273
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                              81,264
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         93,573
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          179,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   149,724
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                    600
<OTHER-SE>                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            179,724 
<SALES>                                  21,338
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         24,597
<CGS>                                    31,351
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           117,215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        1,736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (99,951)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            (99,951) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.02)

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2250

MORRIS RIDDLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-96-537-3-MU)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: December 29, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Morris Riddle, Appellant Pro Se. Louis Adams Bledsoe, III, Douglas

Marshall Jarrell, ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., Charlotte,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Morris Riddle appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint

in which he asserted that he was terminated in violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213

(West 1995 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Riddle v.

ABF Freight Sys., Inc., No. CA-96-537-3-MU (W.D.N.C. July 16,

1998). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000824482
<NAME> HICKORY LENDERS, LTD.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         322,741
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,833,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,156,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,156,342
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,156,342
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,269
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (35,478)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (35,478)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,478)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (10.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (10.06)


</TABLE>
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
 Forage and Range Research: Logan, UT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Logan, Utah Forage and Range Research People & Locations







James R Buffham

(Ramsey)
                        Forage and Range Research

                        




                        
                        Agricultural Science Research Technician
                        Phone: (435) 770-8439
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
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
 Mycotoxin Prevention and Applied Microbiology Research: Peoria, IL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NCAUR homepageSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Peoria, Illinois National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research Mycotoxin Prevention and Applied Microbiology Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications
- MPM Home Page
- Mission Statement
- Strategic Goals
- Major Accomplishments
- Visiting Scientists

Collaborations The Mycotoxin Prevention and Applied Microbiology Research has a long and productive history of collaborative research involving stakeholders.  Current collaborators and projects:


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 Tyray Gilliam, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 811]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered May 28, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the second degree. The judgment was affirmed by order of this Court entered July 1, 2011 (86 AD3d 923 [2011]), and defendant on November 28, 2011 was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order of this Court (17 NY3d 953 [2011]), and the Court of Appeals on May 8, 2012 reversed the order and remitted the case to this Court for clarification of the basis of this Court’s decision (19 NY3d 842 [2012]).

Now, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals,

It is hereby ordered that, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In a prior appeal *(People v Gilliam,*86 AD3d 923 [2011], *read*19 NY3d 842 [2012]), we summarily affirmed the judgment convicting defendant of rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30 [1]). Defendant had contended that his sentence was unduly harsh and severe. In reversing our order, the Court of Appeals concluded that we may not summarily affirm a judgment “without indicating whether [we] relied on the waiver [of the right to appeal] or determined that the sentencing claim lacked merit” *(Gilliam,*19 NY3d at 844). The Court remitted the matter to this Court “for clarification of the basis of [our] decision” *(id.).*

Upon remittal, we conclude that defendant’s unrestricted waiver of the right to appeal encompassed his right to challenge the severity of the sentence *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). To the extent that defendant in his pro se supplemental brief challenges “the denial of his CPL 190.80 motion for release on his own recognizance predicated on the alleged failure to indict him within 45 days of his arrest, we note that such a challenge became moot when the indictment was issued” *(People v Phillips,*277 AD2d 816, 819 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 804 [2001]). The remaining contention of defendant in *1651his pro se supplemental brief, which concerns a matter raised in his omnibus motion, is not properly before us. That contention is also encompassed by defendant’s unrestricted waiver of the right to appeal and, in any event, “[t]he record reflects that defendant withdrew his omnibus motion as part of the plea of guilty, thereby foreclosing our review of the issues raised therein” *(People v Thousand,*41 AD3d 1272, 1273 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 927 [2007]; *see People v Williams,*55 AD3d 759 [2008]; *People v Gully,*17 AD3d 382 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 763 [2005]). Present — Smith, J.P., Centra, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHRISTOPHER HARTMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MATTHEW P. BRADY, RANDY BONDS, 

M. MCDOUGAL, TROY GAINER, 

CHRISTOPHER COWEN, RACHEL COX, 

CITY OF VERNONIA, CITY OF SCAPPOSE, 

COLUMBIA CITY, COLUMBIA COUNTY, 

and WASHINGTON COUNTY, 

Defendants. 

BROWN, Judge. 

3:15-CV-01753-AC 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and 

Recommendation (#72) on September 9, 2016, in which he recommends 

this Court grant Defendants' Motion (#44) to Dismiss and dismiss 

Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend. The matter is now 

before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B) and 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

1- ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-01753-AC Document 77 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 2
Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its 

obligation to review the record de nova. See Dawson v. Marshall, 

561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009) See also United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de nova, the Court does not 

find any error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and 

Recommendation (#72). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' 

Motion (#44) to Dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint with 

leave to replead. The case is returned to the Magistrate Judge 

to issue a scheduling order setting a deadline for the filing of 

an amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 18th day of October, 2016. 

/s/ Anna J. Brown 

ANNA J. BROWN 

United States District Judge 

2- ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-01753-AC Document 77 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                          215,400
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   37,376
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                267,555
<PP&E>                          16,513,492
<DEPRECIATION>                  6,164,895
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  11,431,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           417,730
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    11,431,980
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,620,305
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   2,124,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                9,092
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              318,595
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (513,222)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (513,222)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                     0


</TABLE>