alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

In the Matter of the No. 53302-2-II

Personal Restraint of

MARQUINTON LAMAR ROBERSON,

Petitioner.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SUTTON, J. — Marquinton Roberson seeks relief from personal restraint imposed 

following his 2019 judgments and sentences for first degree unlawful possession of a firearm and 

unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and while armed with a firearm 

(cause no. 16-1-04554-7) and second degree assault while armed with a deadly weapon (cause no. 

17-1-03346-6). In the first judgment and sentence, the trial court imposed a base sentence of 87 

months plus a 36-month firearm sentencing enhancement. In the second judgment and sentence, 

the trial court imposed a base sentence of 63 months, plus a 12-month deadly weapon sentencing 

enhancement, to be served concurrently with the first judgment and sentence.

In this petition, Roberson claims that (1) his attorney and the prosecutor told him that the 

36-month firearm sentencing enhancement would run concurrently with the 87-month base 

sentence, (2) when he signed his plea statement he was on opium and under stress due to his wife’s 

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

January 13, 2020
No. 53302-2-II

2

pregnancy, and (3) his attorney and the prosecutor pressured him to sign his plea statement. But 

on page 4 of his Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty to Non-Sex Offense (Statement), he 

initialed and acknowledged that the State would be recommending a consecutive firearm 

sentencing enhancement. He presents no evidence that his plea was affected by drug use or stress. 

And contrary to his claim of being pressured, on page 9 of his Statement he stated that he was 

making his plea freely and voluntarily, that no one had threatened harm causing him to make the 

plea, and no one had promised him anything other than in the plea agreement. He does not present 

any competent evidence that his plea was invalid. In re Pers. Restraint of Waggy, 111 Wn. App. 

511, 518, 45 P.3d 1103 (2002).

Roberson does not present grounds for relief from restraint. We therefore deny his petition 

and deny his request for appointment of counsel.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, 

it is so ordered.

SUTTON, J.

We concur:

WORSWICK, J.

MAXA, C.J.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

October 8, 2013 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SHAUN ANTHONY DAVIDSON AND

DEEDRA LYNETTE KIZER

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 2011-C-2863 Monte Watkins, Judge

No. M2012-02692-CCA-R3-CD - Filed November 26, 2013

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., concurring.

I agree that Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-9-107(c) is not vague or

overbroad, but such does not mean it is flawless.

On the one hand, the statute issuperfluous; police officers do not need statutory

authority to stop a vehicle pursuant to constitutional principles expressed in Terry v. Ohio,

392 U.S. 1 (1968), and its progeny. Thus, a statute authorizing a detention based upon a

reasonable belief of wrongdoing is a nonstarter.

On the other hand, the statute grants “probable cause” to certain officers with

reasonable beliefs in wrongdoing. “[C]ourts have recognized three distinct types of policecitizen interactions: (1) a full scale arrest which must be supported by probable cause; (2)

a brief investigatory detention which must be supported by reasonable suspicion; and (3)

brief police-citizen encounters which require no objective justification.” State v. Daniel, 12

S.W.3d 420, 424 (Tenn. 2000) (citations omitted). “Probable cause” is a more demanding

standard than “reasonable suspicion.” See e.g., State v. Kailyn Loren McKeown, No. E2011-

02209-CCA-R3-CD,slip. op. at 5 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Sept. 25, 2012). Obviously,

the State may not diminish the ambit of protection afforded its citizens by the federal

constitution. A mere reasonable belief or suspicion does not equate to probable cause and

affording it the consequences of a probable cause determination is constitutionally

impermissible. For this reason, subsection 55-9-107(c) is a flawed statute.
Of course, it matters not; if the officers in the present case had the requisite

reasonable belief or suspicion, their properly limited investigation would have been

authorized by Terry, code subsection 55-9-107(c) notwithstanding.

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

-2-
# C_2011226EN.01002202.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Edison v Commission

(Case T-196/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2011/C 226/43

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Edison S.p.A. (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, R. Casati, M. Beretta, P. Merlino and E. Bruti Liberati, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by V. Di Bucci and F. Amato, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as it concerns Edison SpA.; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as it concerns Edison SpA.;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3802 

To extend the legislative authority of the Adams Memorial Foundation to 

establish a commemorative work in honor of former President John 

Adams and his legacy, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2013 

Mr. LYNCH (for himself, Mr. KEATING, Mr. NEAL, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. 

CAPUANO, Mr. TIERNEY, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. KENNEDY, and Ms. CLARK

of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To extend the legislative authority of the Adams Memorial 

Foundation to establish a commemorative work in honor 

of former President John Adams and his legacy, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3802 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR 

2 MEMORIAL ESTABLISHMENT. 

3 Section 1(c) of Public Law 107–62 (40 U.S.C. 1003 

4 note), as amended by Public Law 111–169, is amended 

5 by striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2020’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 10.32

                             Schedule of Purchasers

A.  Janus Investment Fund, on behalf of its series Janus Global Life Sciences
    Fund

B.  DCF Partners L.P.

C.  The DCF Life Sciences Fund Limited

D.  ACI Capital America Fund, LP

E.  ACI Capital Strategic Fund, LP

F.  Pequot Scout Fund, L.P.

G.  SMALLCAP World Fund, Inc.

H.  American Variable Insurance Series, Global Small Capitalization Fund

I.  Essex Performance Fund, Limited Partnership

J.  Essex Global Life Sciences Fund is a separate series of Essex Specialty
    Pooled Funds, LP

K.  DFS Integrity Partners, L.P.

L.  Gambro Inc.

934955.1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      11,215,702               2,465,079
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,317               1,112,026
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                  18,477
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,544,257               4,348,429
<PP&E>                                       1,399,652               4,960,560
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,016,389               9,854,726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,187,396               6,543,924
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                    628,800                       0
<COMMON>                                       237,636                 137,837
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,916,641               2,321,618
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,016,389               9,854,726
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,571,398              10,499,021
<CGS>                                          233,454               4,541,960
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,620,234              29,747,356
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,675,409              (1,332,617)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (10,957,699)            (22,457,678)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.03)                  (1.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.03)                  (1.64)
        

</TABLE>
In the Matter of: The Estate of La-Reko A. Williams

No. 128P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mr. Matthew R. Arnold, Mr. Paul Tharp, Attorneys at Law, For K.A.K.

Mr. J. Bradley Smith, Mr. Charles W. Hinnant, Attorneys at Law

Mr. Charles Ali Everage, Attorney at Law, Georgia McGowan, For Williams, La-Reko A. (The Estate of)

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Petitioner on the 5th of April 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th of April 2016 by Petitioner in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 9th of June 2016."
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Robert W. Zoller, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kitty Hawk, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     August 14, 2006 By: /s/ ROBERT W. ZOLLER, JR.         Robert W. Zoller, Jr.    Chief Executive Officer and President
# C_2008064EN.01001501.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/15

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Jaworznie (Republic of Poland)) — Piotr Kawala v Gmina Miasta Jaworzna

(Case C-134/07) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Higher national levy for a product imported from another Member State than for a similar product purchased in the relevant Member State - First paragraph of Article 90 EC - Charge on first registration affecting imported second-hand motor vehicles)

(2008/C 64/22)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Jaworznie

Partie to the main proceedings

Applicant: Piotr Kawala

Applicant:

Defendant: Gmina Miasta Jaworzna

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy w Jaworznie — Interpretation of Article 90 EC — Charge levied for the issue of a vehicle registration certificate at the time of the vehicle's first registration in the Member State, the amount of which is significantly greater than that charged for obtaining a duplicate copy of a vehicle registration certificate — Principle of neutrality of domestic charges in light of competition between goods already on the national market and imported goods

Operative part of the order

The first paragraph of Article 90 EC must be interpreted as precluding a charge, such as that provided for in Paragraph 1(1) of the Regulation of the Polish Minister for Infrastructure of 28 July 2003, on the amount of the charge for a vehicle registration certificate which, in practice, is levied on the first registration of a second-hand motor vehicle imported from another Member State and not levied on the purchase of a second-hand vehicle in Poland in so far as the latter is already registered there.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina, v. James Christopher KETCHUM.

No. COA15-771.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Reversed and Remanded.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 I, Joseph P. Schneider, certify that:  1)
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc.;2)
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3)
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4)
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:  a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and  5)
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. Date:
March 25, 2005/s/ Joseph P. SchneiderJoseph P. SchneiderPresident and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
BIOCORAL INC. and is qualified in its' entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               9,142
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      415,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       261,300
<INVENTORY>                                        251,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,755,449
<PP&E>                                             325,036
<DEPRECIATION>                                      98,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,485,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,666,570
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             7,243
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,025,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,485,575
<SALES>                                            250,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   325,071
<CGS>                                              142,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      142,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,259,798
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 114,101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,673,903)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,673,903)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      13,206
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,660,697)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.29)
        


</TABLE>