alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier ALBA-HERRERA, aka Javvier Herrera Alba, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10312.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 12, 2006.

*709Bruce M. Ferg, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deconcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Francisco Leon, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-03-02179-DCB.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Javier Alba-Herrera appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Alba-Herrera contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment based on invalid prior deportation proceedings.

We conclude that Alba-Herrera was not prejudiced when the Immigration Judge did not inform him of his rights under former Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(h), *codified at*8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). Alba-Herrera has not shown a plausible ground for relief from deportation, because he has not shown that his deportation would impose an extreme hardship on his United States citizen family members. *See United States v. Muro-Inclan,*249 F.3d 1180, 1184 (9th Cir.2001).

Furthermore, we conclude that Alba-Herrera was not prejudiced when the Immigration Judge did not inform him of his rights under former INA § 212(c), *codified at*8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Because of his serious criminal history, Alba-Herrera would have needed to demonstrate “unusual or outstanding equities” at the time of his 1999 deportation in order to qualify for relief under former INA § 212(c). *See United States v. Gonzalez-Valerio,*342 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2008). In light of the serious and extensive nature of his criminal record at the time of his 1999 deportation, and in light of the limited equities in his favor at that time, the district court properly found that Alba-Herrera suffered no prejudice. *See id.*

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
SECOND DIVISION

RICKMAN, C. J.,

MILLER, P. J., PIPKIN, J.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be

physically received in our clerk’s office within ten

days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

DEADLINES ARE NO LONGER TOLLED IN THIS

COURT. ALL FILINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN

THE TIMES SET BY OUR COURT RULES.

March 29, 2022

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

A22A0564. LILLY v. THE STATE.

MILLER, Presiding Judge.

After the trial court granted his motion for an out-of-time appeal, James Lilly

seeks review of the denial of his motion for new trial after a jury found him guilty of

rape and exploiting an elder person. On appeal, he argues that (1) the trial court erred

by allowing into evidence statements by the victim’s daughters and a nurse who

treated another witness; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his

convictions. Recent precedent from the Supreme Court of Georgia, however,

precludes us from hearing this appeal.

During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia decided the

cases of Cook v. State, ___ Ga. ___ (Case No. S21A1270) (Mar. 15, 2022), and

Rutledge v. State, ___ Ga. ___ (Case No. S21A1036) (Mar. 15, 2022). In Cook, the
Supreme Court determined that a standalone motion for an out-of-time appeal “is not

a legally cognizable vehicle for a convicted defendant to seek relief from alleged

constitutional violations” and that the sole remedy for a criminal defendant whose

attempt to appeal wasfrustrated by ineffective assistance of counsel isto pursue such

a claim through a petition for habeas corpus. Id. at ___ (5); slip op. at 81-83. In so

holding, the Supreme Court directed that its decision in Cook applies to all cases in

the “appellate pipeline” and that any trial court orders that have decided motions for

out-of-time appeals on the merits “should be vacated if direct review of the case

remains pending or if the case is otherwise not final.” Id. at ___ (4);slip op. at 78-81.

In Rutledge, the Supreme Court applied Cook and vacated the denial of a motion for

an out-of-time appeal and remanded for the trial court to dismiss the motion for lack

of jurisdiction. Rutledge, supra, ___ Ga. at ___; slip op. at 3-4.

In light of this precedent, we must vacate the trial court’s grant of Lilly’s

motion for an out-of-time appeal because it was “not a legally cognizable vehicle for

a convicted defendant to seek relief from alleged constitutional violations.” Cook,

supra, ___ Ga. at ___ (5);slip op. at 81-83. Additionally, “we cannot construe [Lilly’s

motion for an out-of-time appeal] as a habeas petition because it was filed in the

convicting court rather than in the county in which he is incarcerated.” (Citation

2
omitted.) Jones v. State, 322 Ga. App. 269, 271 (1) (745 SE2d 1) (2013).

Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order granting Lilly’s motion for an out-oftime appeal and remand for the trial court to dismiss the motion for lack of

jurisdiction. We express no opinion on the merits of Lilly’s challenge to his

convictions. 

Judgment vacated and case remanded. Rickman, C. J., and Pipkin, J., concur.

3
H. Res. 13 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 6, 2009. 

Resolved, That pursuant to the Legislative Pay Act of 

1929, as amended, the six minority employees authorized 

therein shall be the following named persons, effective January 3, 2009, until otherwise ordered by the House, to-wit: 

Neil Bradley, Brian Gaston, Melanie Looney, Danielle 

Maurer, Nick Shaper, and Russ Vought, each to receive gross 

compensation pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 

119, Ninety-fifth Congress, as enacted into permanent law by 

section 115 of Public Law 95-94. In addition, the Minority 

Leader may appoint and set the annual rate of pay for up 

to 3 further minority employees. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Malik Howard, Appellant.

Submitted April 23, 2012;

decided April 26, 2012

Reported below, 92 AD3d 176.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
H. Res. 1198 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 13, 2010. 

Whereas Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania was founded 

in 1870 as Central State Normal School; 

Whereas Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, located in 

Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, has 4,665 undergraduate students enrolled at the main campus and 440 students enrolled at the Clearfield campus; 

Whereas Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania competes in 

10 women’s and 8 men’s intercollegiate NCAA sports; 

Whereas students attending Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania can obtain degrees and certificates from 60 different undergraduate programs and 3 different graduate 

programs; 

Whereas Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania has 17,000 

living alumni; and 

Whereas 97 percent of recent Lock Haven University of 

Pennsylvania graduates are employed or continuing their 

education and 84 percent of employed graduates are 

working in their field of study or chosen field: Now, 

therefore, be it 
2 

•HRES 1198 EH 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania for 140 years 

of excellence in higher education. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
H. Res. 1382 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 25, 2010. 

Whereas, on March 26, 2010, the Republic of Korea Ship 

(ROKS) Cheonan was sunk by an external explosion in 

the vicinity of Baengnyeong Island, Republic of Korea; 

Whereas of the 104 members of the crew of the ROKS 

Cheonan, 46 were killed in this incident, including 6 lost 

at sea; 

Whereas, on April 25, 2010, the Government of the Republic 

of Korea commenced a 5-day period of mourning for 

these 46 sailors; 

Whereas, on May 20, 2010, the Government of the Republic 

of Korea released an international investigation report on 

the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the ROKS 

Cheonan; 

Whereas the report, conducted by 74 experts, including 24 

from the international community and 50 from the Republic of Korea, found conclusive evidence that the sinking of the ROKS Cheonan was the result of a torpedo attack made by North Korea, in clear violation of the Korean War Armistice Agreement; 

Whereas the alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea has been a vital anchor for security and 

stability in Asia for more than 50 years; and 
2 

•HRES 1382 EH 

Whereas the United States and the Republic of Korea are 

bound together by the shared values of democracy and 

the rule of law: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) expresses its sympathy and condolences to the 

families and loved ones of the sailors of the Republic of 

Korea Ship (ROKS) Cheonan who were killed in action 

on March 26, 2010; 

(2) stands in solidarity with the people and the 

Government of the Republic of Korea in the aftermath 

of this tragic incident; 

(3) reaffirms its enduring commitment to the alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United 

States and to the security of the Republic of Korea; 

(4) supports the findings and conclusions of the investigation report released by the Government of the Republic of Korea on May 20, 2010; 

(5) condemns North Korea in the strongest terms 

for sinking the ROKS Cheonan; 

(6) calls for an apology by North Korea for its hostile acts and a commitment by North Korea never to violate the Korean War Armistice Agreement again; 

(7) urges the international community to provide all 

necessary support to the Republic of Korea as the Government of the Republic of Korea prepares to respond 
3 

•HRES 1382 EH 

to the actions committed by North Korea, which led to 

sinking of the ROKS Cheonan; 

(8) urges the international community to fully and 

faithfully implement all United Nations Security Council 

Resolutions pertaining to security on the Korean Peninsula, including United Nations Security Council Resolution 1695 (2006), United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 (2006), and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874 (2009); and 

(9) further urges the United States, in coordination 

with its allies and partners, to take other appropriate actions in response to the sinking of the ROKS Cheonan 

and other hostile acts of North Korea. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
```

[Federal Register: November 19, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 223)]
[Notices]
[Page 64248]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19no98-50]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 18, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-31050 Filed 11-17-98; 2:26 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Jesus Antonio ENRIQUEZ-MONTANO, aka Antonio Enriquez-Montano; et al., Defendant — Appellant.

No. 07-10325.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 9, 2008.

Liza Granoff, U.S. Attorneys Office, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Wanda Day, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Antonio Enriquez-Montano appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493*617(1967), Enriquez-Montano’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. We construe the document received March 12, 2008, as a motion to file a late pro se supplemental brief as well as a pro se supplemental brief. So construed, the motion to file a late pro se supplemental brief is granted. The Clerk shall file the pro se supplemental brief received on March 12, 2008.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
| 1. | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements      included in the Report. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      Len E. Williams           | /s/ Eric S. Nadeau                      |
|------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| Len E.      Williams          | Eric S.      Nadeau                |
| President      and       | Executive Vice      President and  |
| Chief Executive      Officer  | Chief Financial      Officer       |
|                               |                                    |
|                               |                                    |
| Dated: May 10,      2010           |                                    |

|     |
|----------|
| 41  |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gabriel Paul MASCIOLI, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-7081.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 5, 2010.

Decided: May 5, 2010.

Cheryl J. Sturm, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

*287Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gabriel Paul Mascioli seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mascioli has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### FERRY-HALLOCK CO. v. HERMAN.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

June 12, 1909.)

Patents (§ 328*) — Infringement—Hat Ring.

A preliminary injunction granted to restrain threatened infringement of the Ferry patent, No. 574,894, for a hat ring.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Patents, Dec. Dig. § 328.*]

In Equity. On motion for preliminary injunction.

Gifford & Bull, for complainant.

John R. Bernstein, for defendant.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Inflexes

NOYES, Circuit Judge.

The orderly administration of justice in patent causes requires me to disregard any personal inclination and to follow the decision of this court in Ferry v. Waring Hat Mfg. Co., 129 ! ed. 389. In that case it was held that the patent now in suit was valid and infringed; the infringing device being held to possess the “hollow bead” of the patent.

Giving the phrase “hollow bead” the meaning given it in that opinion, I think it the better view that the structure (Exhibit A) possesses such bead, as well as the petticoat of the patent, and infringes. It *438can hardly be said that this ring has merely a turned-down edge. I think it may be said to have a superabundance of material. It is not entirely clear whether the defendant manufactures the particular structure (Exhibit A). I understood, however, upon the argument, that it was the desire of the defendant that this motion should be determined upon the theory that he was making and using such ring, and anyway, upon the affidavits presented, I should hold that a case of threatened infringement was made out.

A preliminary injunction may be issued with respect to the structure Exhibit A; but if the defendant desires to appeal from this order, and will do so promptly, the issuance of the injunction will be stayed pending the appeal. The parties may, if they desire, submit affidavits upon the question whether any security — and, if any, the amount — should be required upon súch stay.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14903]



[[Page 31917]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6995-6]


Notice of Public Meeting of the National Environmental Education 
Advisory Council

    Notice is hereby given that the National Environmental Education 
Advisory Council, established under section 9 of the National 
Environmental Education Act of 1990 (the Act), will hold a public 
meeting on June 28 and 29, 2001. The meeting will take place 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on 
Thursday, June 28th and Friday, June 29th. The purpose of this meeting 
is to provide the Council with an opportunity to advise EPA's Office of 
Communications, Education and Media Relations (OCEMR) and the Office of 
Environmental Education (OEE) on its implementation of the Act. Members 
of the public are invited to attend and to submit written comments to 
EPA following the meeting.
    For additional information regarding the Council's upcoming 
meeting, please contact Ginger Keho, Office of Environmental Education 
(1704), Office of Communications, Education and Media Relations, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460 or call (202) 564-0453.

    Dated: May 30, 2001.
Ginger Keho,
Designated Federal Official, National Environmental Education Advisory 
Council.
[FR Doc. 01-14903 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
#### TUTTLE et al. v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 20, 1922.)

No. 183.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Suit in admiralty for collision by Frank B. Tuttle and Winthrop M. Tuttle, doing business as S. Tuttle’s Son & Co., against the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company and the Cornell Steamboat Company. Decree for complainants against the Cornell Steamboat Company (281 Fed. 212), from which it appeals.

Affirmed.

Kirlin, Woolsey, Campbell, Hickos & Keating and Robert S. Erskine, alt of New York City, for appellant.

T. L. Bailey, of New York City, for appellees Tuttle.

C. M. Sheafe. Jr., and James T. Kilbreth, both of New York City, for appellee Lehigh Valley R. Co.

Before HOUGH, MANTON, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed.
H. Res. 1050 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 2, 2010. 

Resolved, 

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

For further expenses of the Committee on Standards of 

Official Conduct (hereafter in this resolution referred to as 

the ‘‘Committee’’) for the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, 

there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of the 

House of Representatives not more than $600,000. 

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATION. 

The amount specified in section 1 shall be available for 

expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 

January 3, 2010, and ending immediately before noon on 

January 3, 2011. 

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of 

the Committee, and approved in the manner directed by the 

Committee on House Administration. 
2 

•HRES 1050 EH 

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 

expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 

Committee on House Administration. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the Form S-3D  Registration
Statement No.  333-40211,  Form S-8  Registration  Statements No.  333-60089 and
333-109018 of Community Bank Shares of Indiana,  Inc., of our report dated March
27, 2007, on the consolidated  financial  statements of Community Bank Shares of
Indiana, Inc. which report is included in Form 10-K for Community Bank Shares of
Indiana, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.


                                              /s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLC

Louisville, Kentucky
March 29, 2007