alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2604
LAUNEIL SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant,
DOROTHY LOVE VESTAL SANDERS; JANNETH SANDERS; NATALIE CAROLINE SANDERS; AARON NEIL SANDERS, Plaintiffs, versus WILLIAM CLINTON, United States Pre sident; ORRIN HATCH, United States Senate Judiciary Chairman; JAMES HUNT, North Carolina Governor; DIRECTOR OF NORTH CAROLINA HUMAN SE RVICES; TIMOTHY PATTI; CATHERINE STEVENS; JAMES CARPENTER; WILLIAM VARLEY, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2184-6-20AK) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Launeil Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Jacob Leonard Safron, Special Deputy Attorney General, Virginia Anne Gibbons, Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth Lerch Oxley, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Tracy Lynn Eggleston, COZEN & O'CONNOR, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sanders v. Clinton , No. CA-95-2184-6-20AK (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for sanctions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit      32.2 -**
**Certification      of Principal Financial Officer**

**CERTIFICATION      IN ACCORDANCE WITH**

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

**AS      ADOPTED BY**

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

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Jennifer S. LeBlanc                    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| Jennifer                S. LeBlanc                        |
| Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |
| Date:                May 12, 2008                         |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mitchell L. Harper, Jr., Appellant.

We find that the photographic array shown to Vincenti Gaztambide, who had witnessed the shooting, was not unduly suggestive, and the hearing court’s decision to allow Gaztambide to make an in-court identification was proper *(see, Manson v Brathwaite,*432 US 98; *People v McMickel,*105 AD2d 851; *People v Jones,*85 AD2d 50).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those advanced in his supplemental brief submitted *pro se,*and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 27, 2010

d0419 

# Order

April 27, 2010

140525

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140525 COA: 284525 Wayne CC: 04-011339-FH ERIC EUGENE LIVELY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 7, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.2
------------

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Annual Report of Landauer, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James M. O'Connell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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:

      i.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
            13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      ii.   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 Landauer, Inc. and will be retained by Landauer, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



                                    /s/ James M. O'Connell
                                    ------------------------------
                                    James M. O'Connell
                                    Chief Financial Officer



December 13, 2005
NO. 07-12-0185-CR 

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 AT AMARILLO 

 PANEL C 

 JULY 13, 2012 

 ______________________________ 

 MIGUEL R. LOPEZ, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

 THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

 Appellee 

_______________________________ 

 FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNTY; 

 NO. 2011-00219; HON. TOM SIMONS, PRESIDING 

 _______________________________ 

 

On Motion to Dismiss

 _______________________________ 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant Miguel R. Lopez, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion to dismiss his 

appeal, signed by appellant, because he no longer desires to prosecute it. Without passing on 

the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant=s request, 

no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. 

Do not publish. Per Curiam
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1892

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Hashim Amin Cawthorn, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 21, 2008 Filed: June 4, 2008

___________ Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ BYE, Circuit Judge.
A jury convicted Hashim Cawthorn of c onspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute, and knowingly and inte ntionally distributing, crack cocaine. He appealed his convictions and sentence and we affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and rema nded for our further consideration because of its decision in Kimbrough v. United States , 552 U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007). We now affirm Cawthorn's convictions butreverse and remand for resentencing.
At sentencing Cawthorn asked the district court to vary downward from the advisory guideline range of 210 to 262 months arguing the Guidelines' 100:1 ratio-2- between crack and powder cocaine was unreas onable. The district court declined, stating:
Mr. Cawthorn, your principal object ion or your objection principally goes to a congressional mandate that's been imposed upon the courts and upon our sentencing regime by making th e declaration that crack cocaine is – has to be treated 100 times worse than powder cocaine. That has been a losing fight for 15 years among the judges in this country. There's no way that – Congre ss is not inclined to change that. I have an obligation to – to uphold th e law whether I agree with it or not. That's just one of the oaths that I've taken.
Sent. Tr. at 31.
In Kimbrough , the Supreme Court held senten cing courts may vary downward from the advisory guidelines range based on the disparity created by the 100:1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine offenses . 128 S.Ct. At 575-76. We have held Kimbrough does not require district courts to consider the crack/powder disparity in all sentences for crimes involving crack cocaine. United States v. Roberson , 517 F.3d 990, 995 (8th Cir. 2008). "[A] district c ourt that is aware of an argument does not abuse its discretion by not considering it." Id. (citing United States v. Miles , 499 F.3d 906, 909-10 (8th Cir. 2007)). However, "[w]hen a districtcourt does not consider an argument because it is unaware of its power to do so . . . a remand is appropriate." Id. Based on this record, it is apparent the district court did not recognize its authority to vary from the advisory guidelines senten ce, and we cannot tell whether, had it know it could vary, the court would have gr anted Cawthorn's motion for a downward variance. See United States v. Thomas , No. 06-2452, 2008 WL 55402, at 4 (N.D. Iowa. May 5, 2008). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. As for all other issued rais ed in Cawthorn's appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated in our prior opinion.

______________________________
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 12624 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:13

- cr
- 00212

- JA

- GJK

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus TODD LESLIE KROEBER,
Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (January 23, 2015)
Before HULL , JULIE CARNES and BLACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-12624 Date Filed: 01/23/2015 Page: 1 of 22 Andrew J. Chmelir , appointed counsel for Todd Kroeber in this criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,
18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our inde pendent 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 Kr oeber’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 14-12624 Date Filed: 01/23/2015 Page: 2 of 2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129336(41) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, DOROTHY FOSTER, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 129336 

 COA: 254539 

Midland CC: 03-005830-NZ 

DOW CORNING CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of 

January 30, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the 

order was entered erroneously. 

d0424 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
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
 Diet, Genomics and Immunology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Porcine DatabaseSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC) Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center Diet, Genomics and Immunology Laboratory Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Collaborations The Diet, Genomics and Immunology Laboratory has a long and productive history of collaborative research involving stakeholders.  Current collaborators and projects:  Impact of Specialized Lipid Mediators Derived from EPA and DHA On Gut Microbiota  Multi-Omics Approach to Elucidate Bio-Markers of Food and Beverage Intake  Bio-informatics Approach for Precision Nutrition


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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           11206
<SECURITIES>                                      5556
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3342
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1252
<INVENTORY>                                       3427
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 25520
<PP&E>                                             613
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1098)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   26133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4615
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                       21353
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     26133
<SALES>                                          10936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 10936
<CGS>                                             5739
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5739
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4173
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 377
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1401
<INCOME-TAX>                                       551
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                850
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (4427)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3577)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.37)


</TABLE>
#### AMES v. GERRISH.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1896.)

Action by Merritt Ames against Clara Gerrish.

No opinion. Application denied.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S
NO. WR-94,985-01

EX P A RTE STEVEN CHARLES EWTON, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1355716-A IN THE 351ST DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . N E W

E L L , J. f iled a concurring opinion joined by H E R V E Y , R I C H

A R D S O N , and W A L K

E R , JJ. K

E L L E R , P .J. f

iled a dissenting opinion joined by Y E A R Y , J. S L A U G

H T E R , J. dissented.
O P I N I O N
A p p l i c an t orig inally p leaded g uilty to indecency with a child in ex c hang e for defer r e d adjudication c ommunity supervision. He was later adjudicated g uilty and sentenced to twenty y ears’ imprisonment. He filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 11.07. Applicant contends that he was d enied h is r i gh t t o an appeal because retained appellate counsel assured him that the appeal had b een filed a nd was p rog ressing , but failed to timely file a notice of appeal. The record r eflects that appellate counsel filed a timely motion for new trial, but never filed notice of appeal on Applicant’s behalf.2

The trial court finds that Applicant was n ot prejudiced by appellate counsel’s f a ilure to file notice of appeal because A pplicant had no rig ht to a ppeal. The r ecord d oes n o t s u pport these finding s, as Applicant entered an open plea of true and received the max imum sentence for the offense. Althoug h he sig ned a waiver of appeal, that waiver included lang uag e indicating that this

was a plea barg ain case. There is nothing in the record t o indicate that Applicant pleaded true pursuant to a plea barg ain ag reement, and the j udg ment adjudicating g uilt reflects that he pleaded
true “without an agr e ed recommendation.” T he trial court’s certification o f Applicant’s rig ht to appeal indicates only that he waived h i s r i g ht to appeal. Under Garza v. Idaho , even when a defendant h as waived appeal, his a t t o r n e y h a s a d uty to f ile a notice of appeal if the d efendant so requests, and there is a p resumption of prejudice if the notice is not filed. Garza v. Idaho , 139 S. Ct. 738, 745 (2019). Relief is g r anted. Applicant may file an out-of-time appeal of his c onviction in cause number
135571601010 from the 351st District Court of Harris County

. W ithin ten day s from the date of this
Court’s mandate, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is i n d i ge n t

. I f A pplicant is indig ent and w ants to be represented by counsel, the trial c ourt shall a ppoint counsel to represent him on direct appeal. Should Applicant decide to appeal, he must file a w r itten notice of appeal in the trial court within thirty

day s from the date of this Court’s mandate. Copies of this opinion shall be sent t o t h e T e x a s D e p a

r t m e n t o f Criminal J u stice–Correctional
I nstitutions Division and the B oard of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: OCTOB ER 11, 2023 Do not publish
#### In the Matter of Irwin Hall, Petitioner. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Respondent.

This application has been held in abeyance pending the disposition by the respondent Grievance Committee of additional complaints against the petitioner. Although said Committee has since rendered a report finding that no evidence of further professional misconduct by the petitioner exists, we nevertheless conclude that there is no basis to grant renewal and reargument of petitioner’s application for reinstatement. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         218,929
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  467,001
<ALLOWANCES>                                    93,176
<INVENTORY>                                  2,879,747
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,482,115
<PP&E>                                         478,425
<DEPRECIATION>                                 246,672
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,358,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,429,884
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,314
<OTHER-SE>                                     904,635
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,358,344
<SALES>                                      1,196,953
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,196,953
<CGS>                                          652,162
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,642,997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (245,639)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (221,376)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,343,845)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,343,845)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,343,845)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
STRAWBERRY TUNNEL DIVERSIONLatitude: 40.165Longitude: -111.189Elevation: None

STRAWBERRY TUNNEL DIVERSION

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hobble Creek Site Page...



Hobble Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Daniels-Strawberry Site Page...



Daniels-Strawberry

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Strawberry Divide Site Page...



Strawberry Divide