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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered May 10, 1984, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. This appeal brings up for review the denial (O’Dwyer, J.), after a hearing, of those branches of the defen*349dant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On May 26, 1983, at approximately 2:45 p.m., George Michaelis was robbed at knife point by two men. He reported the incident to the police and provided them with a description of his assailants.

Police Officer Kevin Hennesey, who was on routine traffic patrol on the date in question, learned by means of police radio broadcasts that three robberies had occurred that afternoon. The radio reports disclosed that the suspects were two black males and were driving in a white Monte Carlo bearing New Jersey license plate number 358SSE. Officer Hennesey testified at the suppression hearing that following these broadcasts, he observed a white Monte Carlo and noticed that two black males were seated therein. He further observed, upon closer inspection, that the license plate of this vehicle matched that specified in the radio broadcasts. Therefore, the officer approached the vehicle. He drew his gun and requested that the defendant exit his vehicle and place his hands on the trunk of the car. Approximately two minutes later, a backup unit arrived with the victim of one of the robberies, who identified the codefendant. Both men were placed under arrest, their vehicle was searched, and certain evidence found inside the vehicle was retrieved. Following the administration of *Miranda*warnings, the defendant made certain statements. On appeal, the defendant challenges the admissibility of the evidence seized by the police as well as the admissibility of his statements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, we find that the police possessed the requisite probable cause to arrest the defendant at the time his vehicle was initially stopped, based upon the information conveyed in the radio broadcasts, upon which the officer was entitled to rely, coupled with his personal observations which unequivocally confirmed the details of those broadcasts *(see, People v Brnja,*50 NY2d 366). Moreover, since the evidence was seized incident to a lawful arrest, suppression of this evidence was properly denied.

With respect to the defendant’s statements, the evidence adduced at the hearing reflects that the defendant had been advised of his *Miranda*rights and that he freely and knowingly waived these rights. The defendant’s statements were thus properly held to be admissible and the judgment of conviction is, accordingly, affirmed. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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 11, 2013

Order 

Clerk

July 11, 2013

145646(85)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 145646

COA: 301546 

Lenawee CC: 09-014365-FC 

JEFFERY ALAN DOUGLAS,

Defendant-Appellee. 

______________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to allow counsel for defendant to 

withdraw is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the matter is remanded to the 

Lenawee Circuit Court to determine, in accordance with Administrative Order 2003-03, 

whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint the State Appellate Defender 

Office to represent the defendant in this Court. A copy of the circuit court’s order of 

appointment or denial thereof shall be promptly sent to this Court.

This Court retains jurisdiction.
N0. 04-16-00314-CV 

HILMAR DANIEL BLUMBERG § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appellant, §

§ 

V. § FOURTH DIVISION

§ TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC § SAFETY § 

‘Appellee § SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 

APPELLANT’S WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Appellant, HILMAR DANIEL BLUMBERG, does not desire to appeal the judgment of 

the County Court at Law and withdraws his Notice of Appeal.

; 

Respectfully submitted, 

LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. FROST 

113 W. Gonzales Street 

Seguin, Texas 78155 

830-303-0404 & 830-303-8584 (facsimile) 

J/K/1,-J4'1/L.‘ 

JAMES S. FROST 

Texas Bar No. 07489500 

Email: frost@frost1awoffice.com 

By: 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 

HILMAR DANIEL BLUMBERG 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on May , 2016, a true and correct copy of Appellant’s Withdrawal 

of Notice of Appeal was served on CINDY MYERS, Staff Attorney, Texas Department of Public 

Safety, electronically through the electronic filing manager. 

TLAJJW. 

JAMES S. FROST

ACCEPTED

04-16-00314-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

5/31/2016 1:50:16 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 5/31/2016 1:50:16 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

May 28, 2010



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK , Chief Judge

W ILLIAM J. B AUER , Circuit Judge

T ERENCE T. E VANS , Circuit Judge



### No

. 08-3799

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Plaintiff-Appellee

,

v.

M ARCUS L. W ELTON , Defendant-Appellant

. On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Order

Our prior opinion, 583 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2009), affirmed Welton’s sentence after concluding that the principle of Kimbrough v. United States , 552 U.S. 85 (2007), does not apply to the career-offender Guideline, U.S.S.G. §4B1.1. While Welton’s petition for certiorari was pending, we overruled the panel’s opinion in this case. United States v.
Corner , 598 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The Supreme Court then granted Welton’s petition and remanded with instructions to reconsider in light of Corner

. No. 09-8367 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2010).

Welton contended in the district court that the principle of Kimbrough applies to §4B1.1, and Corner holds that this position is correct. The district court erred in thinking otherwise (though the district judge is not responsible for this error, which was based on earlier decisions that Corner overruled). In a post-remand filing under Circuit Rule NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 08-3799 Page 2

54, the United States contends that the judge’s error was harmless. But the burden of demonstrating harmless error is on the prosecutor, and it is not evident to us that the district judge was determined to impose the same sentence without regard to the effect of Kimbrough on §4B1.1.

A remand for resentencing is the best way to find out. If, as the United States contends, Corner does not affect Welton’s sentence, the district judge has only to say so. But if it does affect the exercise of discretion in sentencing, Welton is entitled to the benefit.

Welton’s sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing consistent with Kimbrough and Corner

.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2021219EN.01001601.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 9.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/16 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10291 — Arçelik/Whirlpool Beyaz)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 219/11)

1.

On 27 May 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2021219EN.01001601-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Arçelik (Turkey), controlled by by Koç Holding A.S |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Whirlpool Beyaz (Turkey), belonging to Whirlpool. |

Arçelik acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Whirlpool Beyaz.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Arçelik: manufacturing and supplying of a broad range of household appliances, consumer electronics and components. In the EEA, Arcelik supplies appliances under the brands Beko, Blomberg, Arctic, Altus, Grundig, Flavel, and ElektraBregenz, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Whirlpool Beyaz: manufacturing refrigerators, freezers and washing machines sold under the brands Whirlpool, Bauknecht, Ignis, Indesit, Maytag, Laden, Poland, Privileg and Kitchen Aid. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2021219EN.01001601-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10291 — Arçelik/Whirlpool Beyaz

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2021219EN.01001601-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2021219EN.01001601-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 11524]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “André Kertész: Postcards from Paris” at the Art Institute of Chicago, in Chicago, Illinois, the High Museum of Art, Atlanta, Georgia, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State,L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.                

Matthew R. Lussenhop,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-19547 Filed 9-8-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Anthony Barnes, Respondent.

Memorandum: Defendant, 15 years old, was arrested for raping, burglarizing, robbing and assaulting an elderly woman. Before questioning defendant, the police determined that defendant’s brother-in-law was the person legally responsible for the child’s care and brought him to the public safety building to be present at the questioning. The court found that the police strictly complied with all the requirements of Family Court Act § 305.2 before advising defendant of his *Miranda*rights. The court held, however, that at the time defendant waived his rights and proceeded to give a statement, the police had information indicating that the guardian and his wife might have possessed property stolen by defendant. The court found that by reason of the "community of interest for the larceny”, the waiver of rights obtained from the defendant’s guardian was so overtly tainted by his motivation to advance his personal interests and those of his wife as to render the waiver a legal nullity. That was error. The voluntariness of a statement in most instances is a question of fact to be determined on the totality of the circumstances *(Matter of Stanley C.,*116 AD2d 209, 214). The fact that the police had information that the guardian or his wife might have possession of goods stolen by defendant does *974not disqualify the guardian nor does it require suppression of the confession. Only if it was shown that the police used this information in a coercive manner to obtain the guardian’s cooperation need the statement be suppressed upon the ground of improper police conduct. Since the court found that the defendant’s statement was voluntary, and that the guardian’s allegation of police threats was not credible, the statement should not have been suppressed. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J. — motion to suppress.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
#### MARLEY, Respondent, v. CITY OF COHOES, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 12, 1897.)

Action by ICate Marley against the city of Cohoes.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.-.
#### In the Matter of Richard V. Caito et al., Respondents, v County of Erie et al., Appellants.

Memorandum: Since petitioners failed to obtain a grade sufficient to qualify them for the position of Police Chief, Town of Brant, no issue is presented for resolution. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ricotta, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.
# C_2021022EN.01000101.xml

| 21.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10073 — Vitol/Drax Generation)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 22/01)

On 15 January 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10073. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10073. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Storage                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Storage                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json
#### In re DE LONG. In the matter of the application to punish Oscar A. De Long for contempt of court.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1896.)

See 41 N. Y. Supp. 201.

E. Wetmore, for the motion.

Stern & Rushmore, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing that the papers submitted by the appellant upon the settlement of the order entered upon the appeal herein, by some mistake, were not presented to the justice who entered the order, the motion for resettlement is granted, and the questions to be submitted upon the appeal to the court of appeals are settled as follows: First, whether Oscar A. De Long, who, at the time of the entry of the judgment or decree in this action, had been president of the defendant corporation, and practically the owner of the corporation, and who had actual knowledge of said judgment or decree at the time it was entered, and who had fraudulently loaned the use of his name to the corporation for the express purpose of engaging in an unfair and fraudulent competition with plaintiff, and which decree ran against the corporation, its clerks, servants, etc., was enjoined from continuing in his individual name the hook and eye business, and from adopting features common to the hook and eye business, such as carding, hooks, etc., and did he carry on such business after the decree in such a way as to constitute fraudulent competition, within the meaning of the decree. Second, whether the lending, by the said Osear A. De Long, of his name to the said corporation, and the use of it by the *1112said corporation while he was the president of it, impaired or affected his general right to the use of his name in the hook and eye business, after such corporation had been adjudged guilty of fraudulent methods in and with the use of the said name, to such an extent as to deprive said De Long of the use of his name in carrying on the hook and eye business in his own name, and on his own account, if he conducted the same in a manner entirely distinct from that of the corporation.
1 –ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TONY FRENCH,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. 2:15-cv-02431-CL

 Civ. No. 2:15-cv-02432-CL

v. Civ. No. 2:15-cv-02433-CL

Civ. No. 2:15-cv-02435-CL

CAPTAIN TURNER, et al., Civ. No. 2:15-cv-02436-CL

Defendants. ORDER 

 

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Findings and Recommendation in each of the 

above cases filed by plaintiff Tony French. The matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Although plaintiff did not file objections, I reviewed the legal 

principles de novo. United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 1998). I find no 

error and conclude the reports are correct. 

Although plaintiff did not file objections, he filed a motion to disqualify Judge Clarke 

and a Second Amended Complaint. The motion to disqualify does not put forth any facts 

Case 2:15-cv-02436-CL Document 12 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 2
2 –ORDER

indicating even the appearance of bias. Instead, French simply states that for some unstated 

reason, Judge Clarke will not give him a fair trial. This bare allegation, without more, is 

meritless. Magistrate Judge Clarke’s Findings and Recommendations are adopted. The Second 

Amended Complaints are similar to the earlier complaints, largely illegible, and do not address 

the deficiencies pointed out by Judge Clarke. As further leave to amend would be futile, this 

action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 29th day of June, 2016.

_______/s/ Michael J. McShane ________

Michael McShane

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02436-CL Document 12 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 2
# C_2021096EN.01000501.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10161 — The Goldman Sachs Group/Warburg Pincus/Good Host Spaces)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 96/05)

On 16 March 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10161. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10161. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---