alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3781

___________ Wylla B. Johnson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 14, 2004 Filed: June 28, 2004 (Corrected 11/29/04)

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BEAM, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Wylla B. Johnson appeals the district court's 1 order affirming an administrative law judge's (ALJ) finding that she was not eligible for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the ALJ's finding was supported by substantial evidence. This case presents no-2- novel issues to justify an extended discussion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40892

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS MONTALVO-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CR-609-1

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Montalvo-Rodriguez (Montalvo) appeals his sentence for having

been found unlawfully present in the United States following a prior

deportation. He asserts that the district court plainly erred by denying him an

opportunity for allocution. As the Government concedes, the district court

violated Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by failing to allow

Montalvo an opportunity to address the court before it imposed his sentence. 

The error was clear or obvious. See United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344, 350

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 9, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-40892 Document: 00511849862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/09/2012
No. 11-40892

(5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We presume that the error violated Montalvo’s

substantial rights because the defense disputed, on several grounds, whether

Montalvo should receive a downward departure or variance. See id. at 352.

In light of the particular facts of this case, we exercise our discretion to

correct the error. It occurred during Montalvo’s initial sentencing and not at a

revocation hearing. See United States v. Avila-Cortez, 582 F.3d 602, 605-06 (5th

Cir. 2009); Reyna, 358 F.3d at 352. Montalvo was given no opportunity to speak

before the district court imposed the sentence. See Avila-Cortez, 582 F.3d at 607;

United States v. Magwood, 445 F.3d 826, 829-30 (5th Cir. 2006). The district

court personally addressed Montalvo only once before imposing the sentence,

when it asked at the outset of the hearing whether he understood why he was

there, whether he had reviewed sentencing materials with counsel, and whether

he understood his sentencing range, which was reduced upon the Government’s

motion that Montalvo receive an additional one-point reduction for acceptance

of responsibility. Montalvo answered only, “Yes.” Additionally, Montalvo’s brief

to this court specifies the arguments he would have made during allocution. See

Avila-Cortez, 582 F.3d at 606-07. The only factor weighing against correcting

the error is that defense counsel offered several arguments on Montalvo’s behalf. 

See Magwood, 445 F.3d at 830. We have previously exercised our discretion to

correct an error even when counsel has offered arguments on a defendant’s

behalf at sentencing. See Avila-Cortez, 582 F.3d at 606-07. Under the facts of

this case, we opt to do so here.

Accordingly, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND FOR

RESENTENCING.

2

Case: 11-40892 Document: 00511849862 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/09/2012
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Kitty Hawk, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and
for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



|Date: November 12, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/ ROBERT W. ZOLLER, JR.            
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|                        |  |     |  | Robert W. Zoller, Jr.                
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President
|                        |  |    
|Date: November 12, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/ DREW KEITH                       
|                        |  |     |  | Drew Keith                           
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer              



The foregoing
certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                       RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
                                  Exhibit 99.1
              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
                     OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE



I, Donald Rechler, CO-CEO of Reckson Associates Realty Corp. the sole general
partner of Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. (the "Company"), certify pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

        1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
            period ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities
            Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

        2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 12, 2002


                          RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
                              By:  Reckson Associates Realty Corp.,
                                     its sole general partner


                                 By     /s/ Donald Rechler
                                   ---------------------------
                                     Donald Rechler, Co-Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
ELECTROSCOPE, INC. BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND STATEMENTS OF 
OPERATION AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,603,498
<SECURITIES>                                 2,989,740
<RECEIVABLES>                                  193,743
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                    691,002
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,535,995
<PP&E>                                         647,952
<DEPRECIATION>                               (321,145)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,022,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          649,970
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,941,317
<OTHER-SE>                                     290,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,022,947
<SALES>                                        640,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               640,743
<CGS>                                          587,285
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,198,339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (201,115)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,943,766)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,943,766)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,943,766)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.36)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 6.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                         COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE INCOME
        (LOSS) (US dollars in thousands, except share and per share data)

                                                     Year ended      Year ended       Year ended
                                                     December 31,    December 31,     December 31,
                                                        2003            2002             2001
                                                        ----            ----             ----


<S>                                                <C>              <C>              <C>
Basic income (loss) per share:
     Net income (loss)                             $     12,491     $     11,934     $     (4,374)
                                                   ============     ============     ============

     Weighted average number of
          shares                                     18,016,789       17,725,879       17,611,886
                                                   ------------     ------------     ------------


     Basic income (loss) per share                 $       0.69     $       0.67     $      (0.25)
                                                   ============     ============     ============


Diluted income (loss) per share:
     Net income (loss)                             $     12,491     $     11,934     $     (4,374)
                                                   ============     ============     ============

    Weighted average number of shares                18,016,789       17,725,879       17,611,886
                                                   ------------     ------------     ------------

    Assuming conversion of stock options
        under Stock Option Plan                       1,043,185          609,948             --
                                                   ------------     ------------     ------------

    Adjusted weighted average number of shares       19,059,974       18,335,827       17,611,886
                                                   ------------     ------------     ------------

      Diluted income (loss) per share              $       0.66     $       0.65     $      (0.25)
                                                   ============     ============     ============
</TABLE>
Roger PAYKERT, Plaintiff, v. Bobby Charles COLEMAN, Defendant.

No. COA 15-165.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded.
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 Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

Administration on Aging, HHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice of selection of individuals to serve as At-Large Delegates to the 2005 White House Conference on Aging (WHCoA).

# SUMMARY:

The Policy Committee of the 2005 White House Conference on Aging (WHCoA) announces the selection of At-Large Delegates to attend the 2005 WHCoA from December 11 through 14, 2005. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held from Sunday, December 11, 2005 to Wednesday, December 14, 2005. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road, NW., Washington, DC 20008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Scott Nystrom, Executive Director, WHCoA, at (301) 443-2511, or e-mail at                         *Scott.Nystrom@whcoa.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-501, November 2000), the WHCoA Policy Committee announces the selection of At-Large Delegates to the 2005 WHCoA. Previously, Governors of all 50 States, the U.S. Territories, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, Members of the 109th Congress, and the National Congress of American Indians selected the majority of delegate representatives to the 2005 WHCoA. The Policy Committee has tried to ensure that, with the selection of these At-Large Delegates and as mandated by statute, designated delegates represent a broad cross section of the U.S. population so that concerns and issues of current as well as future seniors receive appropriate attention. 

                    All delegates will vote on resolutions and develop implementation strategies to be presented to the President and Congress to help guide national aging policies for the next decade and beyond. A complete list of all delegates can be found on the WHCoA web site at                     *http://www.whcoa.gov.*

Dated: September 7, 2005. 

Edwin L. Walker, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs. 

[FR Doc. 05-18035 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
STATE of North Carolina, v. Ray Earl PUGH, Defendant.

No. COA15-666.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 2, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
#### Zhanna Paykina, Appellant, v Vlad Golden et al., Respondents.

[802 NYS2d 696]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated September 8, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants submitted the affirmed medical reports of the examining doctors—an orthopedist, a neurologist, and a psychologist. These reports stated that the plaintiff had recovered from her injuries and was suffering from no disabilities or impairments which would limit her ability to perform her normal daily living and work activities. Thus, the defendants *1022made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The affirmation of the plaintiffs physician was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact insofar as it was based upon an examination that occurred approximately four years after the plaintiffs last medical treatments, a gap in time which was not satisfactorily explained *(see Pommells v Perez, 4*NY3d 566 [2005]; *Smith v Askew,*264 AD2d 834 [1999]).

Moreover, there was no competent medical evidence in the record which would support a claim that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of her daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days as a result of the subject accident *(see Sainte-Aime v Ho,*274 AD2d 569, 570 [2000]; *Jackson v New York City Tr. Auth.,*273 AD2d 200, 201 [2000]; *Greene v Miranda,*272 AD2d 441, 442 [2000]; *Arshad v Gomer,*268 AD2d 450 [2000]).

Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Florio, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 99.17****CONSENT OF F. BROWN**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents,which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statementon Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission: 1. The technical report dated December 31, 2007 and amended February 19, 2008entitled “Amended Peñasquito Project Technical Report Concepción del Oro District,Zacatecas State, México” (the “Amended Peñasquito Report”); and  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 25, 2008, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the Amended PeñasquitoReport, the Wharf Mine, and the properties described therein.Date: March 28, 2008         /s/ Fred Brown   Name:  Fred Brown   Title:  Independent Geological Consultant
STATE of North Carolina v. Avery Orlando GRAHAM.

No. COA14-1260.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 18, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Prejudicial Error.
Alfred ABDO, Jr. and Abdo Demolition & Property Restoration v. M.B. KAHN CONSTRUCTION CO., St. Paul Surety and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.

No. 34P08-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Alfred Abdo, Jr., Pro Se.

G. Gray Wilson, J. Chad Bomar, Winston-Salem, Lorin J. Lapidus, for Kahn Construction, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs on the 15th day of October 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137029 & (18)(19) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 137029 

 COA: 286301 

Livingston CC: 08-0171540-FH

EDWARD JOSEPH PETERSMARCK, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the July 24, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for stay is DENIED. 

t0822 

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. 

August 26, 2008 

 Clerk
# CE2004088EN.01012801.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/128 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/128

---

(2004/C 88 E/0136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3032/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Denigration by Turkey of its ethnic minorities

Subject:

Violations of human rights in Turkey are continuing. This is in spite of the fact that Turkey has adapted some of its national legislation to take account of EU standards. One example of the continued denigration of minorities is that the Turkish Education Ministry issued a decree on 14 April 2003 to all schools in the country requiring essay competitions and lectures to be organised denying the genocide in and after 1914 against ethnic Armenians and Assyrians/Syrians, and accusing these ethnic groups of having been traitors to the Ottoman Empire. Assyrian/Syrian and Armenian children are suffering discrimination on a daily basis, specially by being forced to participate in these lectures which are an insult to their own ethnic and religious identity.

The Turkish human rights organisation IHD has reacted sharply to the decree and has recently launched a campaign together with human rights lawyers seeking to prevail upon the Turkish government to cancel the decree and cease these violations. The Education Ministry's decree of 14 April 2003 contrasts starkly with the demands made on Turkey at the European Convention and elsewhere.

What measures does the Commission propose to take with a view to prevailing on the Turkish government to abolish this decree and cease the insults to its ethnic and religious minorities?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 2003)

(24 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the Turkish Education Ministry circular of 14 April 2003 relating to the requirement of schools to organise essay competitions and lectures denying ‘the Armenian, Greek Pontus and Assyrian allegations’.

The Commission raised this matter with the Turkish authorities in the course of its regular dialogue. The issue has been addressed in the Commission's Regular Report, issued on 5 November 2003 (1).

1

More generally, the Commission is aware of the difficulties encountered by minorities throughout Turkey and will continue to closely monitor their treatment.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 676 final.

1

---
STATE v. CARTER.

No. COA07-1415.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 1, 2008.

Certification Date July 21, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (03CRS70954, 03CRS70952, 03CRS70956).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part, Remanded in part.