alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 -0213 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSHUA GLEN REID,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 11, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 4 2022

04/04/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0213
STATE v. Christopher Scott ELLIS

281P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2017

Kirby H. Smith, III, Attorney at Law, New Bern, for Ellis, Christopher Scott.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of August 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2017."
# Official Journal C 213/25 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 213 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4725 August 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 213

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4725 August 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 213/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 213/2 | Information procedure — Technical rules (1) | 2 |
| 2004/C 213/3 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3354 — SANOFI-SYNTHELABO/AVENTIS) (1) | 8 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 213/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 213/2

Information procedure — Technical rules (1)

2

2004/C 213/3

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3354 — SANOFI-SYNTHELABO/AVENTIS) (1)

8

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | European Parliament |
| 2004/C 213/4 | Call for applications with a view to the appointment of the european ombudsman | 9 |

III   Notices

European Parliament

2004/C 213/4

Call for applications with a view to the appointment of the european ombudsman

9

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2004/C 213/5 | Corrigendum to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2004 (EU-25) (OJ C 105, 30.4.2004) | 10 |

Corrigenda

2004/C 213/5

Corrigendum to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2004 (EU-25) (OJ C 105, 30.4.2004)

(OJ C 105, 30.4.2004)

10

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
STATE of North Carolina v. Samuel Allen TAYLOR

No. 80P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Sean Paul Vitrano, Attorney at Law, Wake Forest, Samuel Allen Taylor, for Taylor, Samuel Allen.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, Greg Newman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th of March 2017 by Defendant in this *46matter 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 3rd of May 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of March 2017 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of March 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
In the MATTER OF: S.C.H. and J.A.H., Jr.

No. 84P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Michael E. Casterline, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for Hampton, James Andrew (Sr.).

Brooke L. Clark, Attorney at Law, for Robeson County DSS.

Jami J. Farris, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for GAL.

Anthony D. Griffin, Attorney at Law, Red Springs, for Williams, Trellis.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th of March 2017 by Respondent (Father) 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 3rd of May 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. Milton Calonie MORRIS

No. 310P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Winifred H. Dillon, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Milton Calonie Morris, for Morris, Milton Calonie.

Carolyn McLain, Assistant Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 14th of September 2017 by Defendant 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 1st of November 2017."
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 2 3

- 1792 LT Case No. 20 18

- CF

- 2501

_____________________________ O MARION T EVON N ATHAN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County

. Stephen E. Toner, Jr. , Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Louis A. Rossi , Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris
, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee

.

November 28, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.

E DWARDS , C

. J., and M AKAR and M AC I VER , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JAMES BRANCH, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-16957 

D.C. Nos. 4:16-cv-01643-PJH 

4:04-cr-40022-PJH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 15, 2017**

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner James Branch appeals from the district court’s denial of his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 

We review the district court’s denial of a section 2255 motion de novo, see United 

States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-16957 

Branch’s section 2255 motion argued that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. 

Ct. 2551 (2015), rendered the residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) 

unconstitutionally vague, and therefore his prior California robbery conviction 

could no longer support his career offender sentence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. This 

argument is foreclosed by Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 895 (2017). 

The government’s concession in the district court that the residual clause in 

§ 4B1.2(a)(2) was void does not bind this court. See United States v. Perez-Silvan, 

861 F.3d 935, 938 n.2 (9th Cir. 2017) (courts “are not bound by a party’s 

concession as to the meaning of the law” (internal quotations omitted)).

Branch contends, for the first time in his reply brief, that he is actually 

innocent of being a career offender because his predicate California robbery 

conviction no longer constitutes a crime of violence under the 2016 version of 

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). Even if this argument were properly before this court, see 

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985-86 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009), it would be 

foreclosed. See United States v. Chavez-Cuevas, 862 F.3d 729, 740 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(reaffirming United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2008), which 

held that California robbery categorically qualifies as a crime of violence).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.

Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a), or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Sensus (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus USA Inc.



|                |  |                                             |  |          |  |                                           
|--------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | -------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|/S/ PETER MAINZ |  | /S/ JEFFREY J. KYLE                        
|Name:           |  | Peter Mainz                                 |  | Name:    |  | Jeffrey J. Kyle                           
|Title:          |  | Chief Executive Officer & President         |  | Title:   |  | Chief Financial Officer                   
|Company:        |  | Sensus (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus USA Inc. |  | Company: |  | Sensus (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and SensusUSA Inc.
|Date:           |  | October 28, 2009                            |  | Date:    |  | October 28, 2009
IN RE: Olander R. BYNUM

No. 109P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Olander R. Bynum, for Bynum, Olander R.

Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 6th of April 2017 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Pender County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. Taylor Pruitt ROBERSON

No. 194P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

*390Patrick M. Megaro, Attorney at Law, for Roberson, Taylor Pruitt.

Jill A. Bryan, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 14th of June 2017 by Defendant 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 17th of August 2017."
Exhibit 21.1

                   LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF GENERAL MEDIA, INC.

                                                          State or Other
                                                         Jurisdiction of
                                                          Incorporation
      Name                                               Or Organization
      ----                                               ---------------
1.    General Media Communications, Inc.                    Delaware
2.    General Media Films, Inc.                             New York
3.    General Media International Financial Services        (GMIFS)
         N.V.                                               Netherlands Antilles
4.    General Media (UK), Ltd.                              United Kingdom
5.    Penthouse Clubs International Establishment           Liechtenstein
6.    Penthouse Images Acquisition, Ltd.                    New York
7.    Penthouse Music, Ltd.                                 Delaware
8.    Pure Entertainment Telecommunications, Inc.           New York
9.    Pure Entertainment Telecommunications (Curacao) N.V.  Netherland Antilles
10.   General Media Entertainment, Inc.                     New York
11.   General Media Automotive Group, Inc.                  New York
12.   General Media On-Line Services, Inc.                  Delaware
13.   Penthouse Financial Services N.V.                     Netherland Antilles
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-50791 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JORGE LUIS MENDEZ-SORIA, also known as Jorge Luis Mendez Soria, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:11-CR-656-1
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Luis MendezSoria has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mendez-Soria has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and t h e relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We
concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate revi e w . Ac c o rdingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 19 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50791 Document: 00511892234 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2012No. 11-50791

G RANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, a n d th e APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-50791 Document: 00511892234 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2012
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies.  Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.  The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors.  Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.  Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 14, 2005.

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

*1.  Ogden Bancshares, Inc.*, Ames, Iowa; to engage                     *de novo*                     in extending credit and servicing loans, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 26, 2005.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 05-19503 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 8, 2005, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 5 new standards have been initiated and 5 existing standards are being revised. More detail regarding these changes can be found at                     *http://standards.ieee.org/​standardswire/​sba/​08-12-05.html.*

                    On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 1, 2005. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act of August 11, 2005 (70 FR 46890).                

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 05-19294 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-19-00332-CR 

ROBIN LEANN POWELL, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 242nd District Court 

Hale County, Texas 

Trial Court No. B20247-1606, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding 

 

March 19, 2020 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

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

Robin Leann Powell, appellant, appeals the order revoking her probation. After a 

guilty plea for forgery of a financial instrument, appellant was placed on four years’

probation. Subsequently, the State filed a Motion to Revoke and a hearing was held on 

same. After appellant pled true to the State’s allegations and testimony was presented 

in support of the allegations, the trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked 

appellant’s probation and sentenced her to ten months in a State Jail facility. Appellant 

filed an appeal.
2

Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw together with an Anders1 brief. 

Through those documents, he certifies to the Court that, after diligently searching the 

record, the appeal is without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a 

letter sent by counsel to appellant informing the latter of counsel’s belief that there is no 

reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response, pro se, to counsel’s Anders

brief. So too did counsel provide appellant with a copy of the clerk’s and reporter’s 

records, according to the letter. By letter dated February 11, 2020, this Court notified 

appellant of her right to file her own brief or response by March 12, 2020, if she wished 

to do so. To date, no response has been received. 

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel 

discussed potential areas for appeal. However, he then explained why the issues lacked 

merit. 

We conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel’s 

conclusions and to uncover arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

(en banc). No issues of arguable merit were uncovered, however. 

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.2

Brian Quinn 

Chief Justice

Do not publish. 

1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 

2 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals.