alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *612Edward Rodriguez, Appellant.

The defendant and another robbed a group of youths while they were in a well-lit archway. Following the robbery, three of the youths made a photographic identification of the defendant at the precinct. The defendant was arrested a month after the incident and placed in a lineup. He chose his own position in the lineup and was identified by a victim.

The defendant argues on appeal that evidence of the lineup identification should have been suppressed because he was the only individual with a large Afro hair style, he was the only Hispanic, and he was the youngest participant. We disagree. A photograph of the lineup does not support the defendant’s arguments. In addition, a police officer testified that there were two other members of the lineup with Afro haircuts and one other man with bushy, curly hair in the six-man lineup. In this regard, there is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in appearance *(see, United States v Porter,*430 F Supp 208, 211-212). The person viewing the lineup testified that he had observed the defendant for seven minutes during the incident and had previously made a photographic identification of the defendant immediately following the incident.

With regard to the makeup of the lineup, the police made an attempt to locate persons for the lineup who resembled the defendant. Unknown to them, one of the participants was a police officer known to the viewer. Since there is no per se requirement regarding the numerical composition of lineups, this did not require suppression of the lineup identification *(see, People v Norris,*122 AD2d 82). The issue involved in ascertaining the validity of a lineup identification concerns "undue suggestiveness” which is determined by considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the lineup. At bar, there has not been such a showing *(see, People v Norris,*
      *613
      *supra),*and the hearing court properly denied the motion to suppress the lineup identification.

The defendant further argues that the prosecutor’s summation deprived him of a fair trial. Our review of the record reveals that the prosecutor’s summation did not exceed the broad bounds of fair comment permissible in closing argument *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 399; *People v Allen,*121 AD2d 453), and was, in part, in response to defense counsel’s own summation arguments *(see, People v Ortiz,*116 AD2d 531). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

2009-1383 

(Serial No. 08/998,507) 

IN RE ALBERT BAUER 

William J. Sapone, Coleman Sudol Sapone P.C., of Bridgeport, Connecticut, 

argued for appellant. 

William LaMarca, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent 

and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for the Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, 

and Nathan K. Kelley, Associate Solicitor. 

Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office 

 Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-1383 

(Serial No. 08/998,507) 

IN RE ALBERT BAUER 

Judgment 

ON APPEAL from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent 

Appeals and Interferences. 

In CASE NO(S). 08/998,507 

 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (BRYSON, SCHALL and DYK, Circuit Judges.) 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATED: April 12, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
Terri Wood, OSB #883325

Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C.

730 Van Buren Street

Eugene, Oregon 97402

541-484-4171

Fax: 541-485-5923

Email: contact@terriwoodlawoffice.com

Attorney for Jon Ritzheimer

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-VSJON RITZHEIMER,

Defendant

Case No. 3:16-CR-00051-02-BR

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF CONSENT

TO STAND-IN COUNSEL

Defendant, Jon Ritzheimer, hereby provides notice of his consent to be

represented by stand-in counsel Amy Baggio at any proceedings during the

month of May 2016, when that becomes necessary due to the unavailability of

his counsel, Terri Wood. He affirms that he has discussed this matter with his

counsel, and understands that stand-in counsel will address the Court on his

NOTICE OF CONSENT TO STAND-IN COUNSEL Page 1

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 429 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 2
behalf, and inform the Court of his positions on motions and other matters,

when called upon by the Court to do so.

DATED this day of April, 2016.

JON RITZHEIMER

Defendant

TERRIWOOD OSB 883325

Attorney for Ritzheimer

NOTICE OF CONSENT TO STAND-IN COUNSEL Page 2

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 429 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 2
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Willie J. Peay

*Herbert G. Appleton,*special public defender, on the motion.

*Richard E. Maloney,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

Argued June 3

decided June 3, 1975

The application by Herbert Gr. Appleton to withdraw as counsel on behalf of the defendant in the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is granted.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

October 15, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00427

- CR

Christian Israel FRANKLIN, Appellant

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 3 99th Judicial District Court
, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR6244 Honorable Frank J. Castro , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; Rule 25.2(a)(2) applies. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 25.2(a)(2). This court must dismiss this appeal “ if a certification that t he defe ndant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” Id. R. 25.2(d); see Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

We ORDER A ppellant to cause an amended trial court certification to be filed in this

co urt within T HIR TY days of the date of this order showing A ppellant has the right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d)
, 37.1; see also Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State
, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). If no amended trial court certification is filed as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d)

. All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court

._________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of October, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
US. Department of Justice 

United States Marshals Service 

PLAINTIFF 

Anthony Cross 

DEFENDANT 

PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN 

See "Instructions for Service o(Process by U.S. Marshal" 

FILEIOS t'4Jv' '1414143USOC-<RP COURT CASE NUMBER 

3: 14-cv-01310-KI 

TYPE OF PROCESS 

City of Portland, Asheim, Defrain, Burley, Murphy, Dale, Duilio Civil Summons, Complaint, etc. 

{

NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION. ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN 

SERVE Ken Duilio ~~~~----~=-~----~~~~--~~~~------------------------------------------ AT ADDRESS (Street or RFD, Apartment No., City, State and ZIP Code) 

PPB North Precinct, 449 NE Emerson St., Portland, OR 97211 

SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO REQUESTER AT NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW Number of process to be 

------·--·--···-----------·---···----·---------·-···--·-- served with this Form 285 9 

Fold 

~chary Spier, Attorney at Law 

405 NW 18th Ave 

Portland, OR 97209 

L 

Number of parties to be 

served in this case 

Check for service 

on U.S.A. 

7 

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE (Include Business and Alterntlle Addresses. 

AU Telephone Numbers, and Estimated Times Available for Service): 

Process to be served: Summons, complaint, IFP application, case assignment order, magistrate consent, IFP order, 

discovery/scheduling order, discovery agreement, case management schedule 

The above defendant works 4 p.m. to 2 a.m. Wednesday through Saturday. Per PPB Directive 220.40, can schedule service at 

beginning or end of shift. Precinct# (503) 823-5700. 

Iii m AJNTIFF 

DDEFENDANT 

TELEPHONE NUMBER 

(503) 305-3730 

DATE 

9/30/14 

OR USE OF U.S. MARSHAL ONLY-- DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 

I acknowledge receipt 

number of process ind1 ated. 

Date 

Fold 

(Sign only for USM285 ifmore ro L/ ~tM~n~o~M~US~M~2~85~~~s®~m~it~re~d~)--~==~==~~~~~~~~~~_j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~====_l~~~~-j 

I hereby certify and return that I D have personally served ,0 have legal evidence of service, D have executed as shown in "Remarks", the process described 

on the individual , company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above on the on the individual , company, corporation, etc. shown at the address inserted below. 

hereby certify and return that I am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, etc. named above (See remarks below) 

Name and title of individual served (if not shown above) 

Address (complete only different tMn shown above) 

Service Fee 

REMARKS: 

Total Mileage Charges Forwarding Fee 

including endeavors) 

~0 

~' 

I'RI'\ I :; ( 01'11 S: l. CLERK OF THE COURT 

2. USMS RECORD 

3. NOTICE OF SERVICE 

Total Charges Advance Deposits 

4. BILLING STATEMENT*: To be returned to the U.S. Marshal with payment, 

if any amount is owed. Please remit promptly payable to U.S. Marshal. 

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT 

D A person of suitable age and discretion 

then residing in defendant's usual place 

of abode 

Date Time 

PRIOR EDITIONS MAY BE USED 

Form USM-285 

Rev. 12/80 

Case 3:14-cv-01310-KI Document 16 Filed 11/06/14 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11



                              DATAWORKS CORPORATION
          STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                           MARCH 31,
                                                                       1998         1997
                                                                     --------     --------
<S>                                                                  <C>          <C>     
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net income                                                           $  3,092     $  1,889
                                                                     ========     ========

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                   14,112       13,639
                                                                     ========     ========

Basic earnings per share                                             $   0.22     $   0.14
                                                                     ========     ========


DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net income                                                           $  3,092     $  1,889
                                                                     ========     ========

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                   14,112       13,639
  Weighted average options and warrants to purchase common
    stock as determined by the treasury method                            905          660
                                                                     --------     --------
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding as adjusted       15,017       14,299
                                                                     ========     ========

Diluted earnings per share                                           $   0.21     $   0.13
                                                                     ========     ========
</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60368 Conference Calendar

JAMES M. LYLE, IV, ET AL., Plaintiffs, JAMES M. LYLE, IV; CHARLES HAMPTON, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus JOE PRICE, Sheriff; RICK GASTON, Capt., Warden; FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:92-CV-578-GR

-------------------- December 15, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James M. Lyle, IV (Prisoner No. 02386) and Charles Hampton (Prisoner No. 03230-043) seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), following the district court’s certification that theirappeals from the judgment in favor of the defendants in a civilrights complaint are taken in bad faith. Lyle and Hampton argueNo. 96-60368 -2- that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that there was no factual basis for their claims. Neither Hampton nor Lyle have shown that they can bring any claims of arguable merit on appeal. Accordingly, both IFP motions are DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### John A. Delgado, Administrator *v.*St. Mary’s Hospital

*Kevin T. Nixon,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Bruce W. Thompson,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued April 1

decided April 1, 1975

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas for the judicial district of Waterbury is granted.
Ernest Warren, Jr. OSB 891384 

E-Mail: e.warren@warrenpdxlaw.com 

Warren & Sugarman 

Suite 500, 838 SW First Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

Tel: (503) 228-6655 

Fax: (503) 228-7019 

Attorney for Defendant Eric Lee Flores 

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:16-CR-00051-25-BR 

v. 

ERIC LEE FLORES, 

Plaintiff, 

Defendant. 

MOTION FORA 

CONTINUANCE 

OF TRIAL DATE 

IN COMPLIANCE with the conferral order, Eric Lee Flores by and through his attorney, 

Ernest Warren, Jr., conferred with the government before filing this motion and respectfully 

requests that this Honorable Court continue the trial date for the above-captioned case from the 

date now scheduled September 7, 2016 to December 6, 2016. 

FURTHERMORE, the defendant, shall agree that the period of time reflected in this 

continuance is excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7) from the time period within which 

trial must commence as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(l). 

IS/ Ernest Warren, Jr. 

Ernest Warren, Jr. OSB No. 891384 

Attorney for defendant 

Page 1 - MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE 

Warren & Su1rnrman 

Attorneys at U.w 

838 SW First Avenue• Suite 500 • Portland. Oregon 97204 

Tel (503) 228-6655 • Fax (503) 228-70f9 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 379 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have served a certified true copy of the MOTION TO CONTINUE 

TRIAL DATE AND DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 

DA TE in the attached matter upon the parties listed below by notice of electronic filing using the 

CM/ECF System as follows: 

Ethan D. Knight 

Craig J. Gabriel 

Geoffrey A. Barrow 

U.S. Attorney's Office 

District of Oregon 

1000 S.W. Third Avenue 

Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204 

503-727-1118 

Fax: 503-727-111 7 

and filed the original with the Court on the date listed below. 

Page 1 -CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

DATED this _1_ day of April, 2016. 

WARREN & SUGARMAN 

ls/Ernest Warren, Jr. 

Ernest Warren, Jr. OSB No. 891384 

Attorney for Defendant 

Warren & Su2arman 

Attomeys at Lliw 

838 SW First Avenue • Suite 500 • Portland. Oreg_on 97204 

Tel (503) 228-6655 • Fax (503) 228-70 r9 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 379 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF QUEST EDUCATION CORP FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED MARCH
31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      12,936,466
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,126,575
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,043,465
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,469,616
<PP&E>                                      25,049,336
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,218,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              81,540,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,475,936
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        82,203
<OTHER-SE>                                  44,081,951
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                81,540,584
<SALES>                                     92,870,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            92,870,264
<CGS>                                       77,522,377
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               77,522,377
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,521,480
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,469,746
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,204,002
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,152,659
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,165,522
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,987,137
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,987,137
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73


</TABLE>
# L_2009288EN.01002501.xml

| 4.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 288/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/25

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 21 October 2009

appointing two Greek members of the Committee of the Regions

(2009/808/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Greek Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1).

| (2) | Two members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the death of Mr Christos PALEOLÓGOS and the end of the term of office of Mr Paris KOUKOULOPOULOS, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Two members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the death of Mr Christos PALEOLÓGOS and the end of the term of office of Mr Paris KOUKOULOPOULOS,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as members for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010:

| — | Mr Konstantinos SIMITSIS, Mayor of the City of Kavala, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Konstantinos SIMITSIS, Mayor of the City of Kavala,

| — | Mr Theodoros GKOTSOPOULOS, Municipal Counsellor of the Municipality of Pallini, Attica. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Theodoros GKOTSOPOULOS, Municipal Counsellor of the Municipality of Pallini, Attica.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 21 October 2009.

For the Council

The President

A. CARLGREN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

---
.I 

### 668

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY **GENERAL** OF TEXAS AUSTIN 

# B5ulduLn (\

Opinion a -55% FM: lotsrpro

%- **-0s** te lo* 4 7-Y ti a, I ih LA z.

ii

-

t1aa &all **oxtrad**

on thereof URltrr &e ori- 

## azul all txttn8io.n8

thereof were 

### t le.8 than l 1xty (60) days*

to me tht ia rbrlaletrr~ the law, It Will %ccoik a very lmportent matter to 4ttmalnt 

### how to 

### l mlr the ~QluaDtlon aa to the actual and mi ktmg

l lO UL, **88** QltSny **80,** or 

### three or poaa

lr ly l&or0 eJarwabg*ttht8afaetlar.-


### 66:

JoaorabltJ.P. Bauldvln, page 2

Ths priaa taalt prtsuraptloa 

### rtrtrrtd to 

### 02paragraph t OS 8tatlon 28 or said bcnatt Bill psrtalas to the astusl md ~ttssu’~txptists lnaurredbythslsndsr Inwaloan. Ths bill provides that ln a trial for an llljunat1al undertht pro- **~l&Xh8 Of**  **thi8** lidt thCM **SXiSt8 S**  **wiu fSOit**  jll'tSUW#iOR tbet $h@ 8ttUd 8Id StOOSttl'J tQNMt8 Oi pollas ($1.00) for taah fifty Dollar8 say lsan was ens or f'raatloaal +rt thereof, 1-d.

A8 **lf.** 

## irrtorgrcttbt **tbovt** qUOttd portlm ol 8tn8te ,all 4). as 88ZW ap&wars la your rtgucst, this prllm taalt.prt21On, the Mttwc Of **Whlah** is tx~hintd **tbott,** 8&@it8 **only** 'r?h e flcrt note or dsbt owing by a mr8OXl **to a**  **lender wbm**  thtrt trt revert1 obllgatioasor note8 exlrtlngbttwoen the g"tit8 8t the Wms tiNis. This prims iaala prtsunptlonwall got cxttad to the 

### rtnowal or txtuulon 

### of thlir

## rir8t note 

### or ::drbt tiOt88 it and sll tXteMfoix8 thereof art rash fog, a period 0s not .lars than tlxty days. In other word8 lf there lt exlrtLag an outstw note or debt bstusoa ths (Cortover and the lender at the tina a loan 18 swls, this prlsp faalt plwsumption doss not apply to thir latter losn. Was prlaa 

## raeit prtswaptlon as to the l ataal nnd nw~srnry 0xpn888 iaourred in making a loan trtsads only to sush note or debt mads 8t a tlas vbm **~thtrt** art ao aurrsat outstandingobllgatloas bstwesn ths *tits, and to 

### the txtcnslcsr 

### ane remial tbsreoi rhsa 8ush rots 

### or dsbt and all oxttnslons8re emh for a psrlod of sixty day8 or morh

We trust the forcgolng 

## r\ilip aks*orsyour Loquiry. Very truly JOUP

Robert 0. I;osh