alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Soldier Accounted for from Korean War (Yde, E.)

/ Published April 3, 2024
Washington, 
The Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) announced today that U.S. Army Capt. Erik F. Yde, 32, of San Francisco, California, killed during the Korean War, was accounted for June 22, 2023.

In June 1950, Yde was a member of Headquarters, Headquarters Battery, 503rd Field Artillery Battalion, 2nd Infantry Division. Yde was captured as a prisoner of war (POW) after his unit was forced to retreat from Wonju in the vicinity of Hoengsong, South Korea. Due to intense fighting in the area, Yde was separated from his unit and was last seen attempting to penetrate an enemy roadblock. In 1953, several POWs returned during Operation Big Switch reported Yde had been a prisoner of war and died in June, 1951, at Prisoner of War Camp #1.

In the fall of 1953, during Operation Glory, North Korea returned remains reportedly recovered from Changsong, also known as Prisoner of War Camp #1, to the United Nations Command. However, Yde’s name did not appear on any of the transfer rosters and the Central Identification Unit in Kokura, Japan, did not associate any repatriated remains with him. Yde was determined non-recoverable in January 1956.

In July 2018, the DPAA proposed a plan to disinter 652 Korean War Unknowns from the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, known as the Punchbowl, in Honolulu. In January 2020, the DPAA disinterred Unknown X-14275, a set of remains returned during Operation Glory, as part of Phase Two of the Korean War Disinterment Plan and sent the remains to the DPAA laboratory for analysis.

To identify Yde’s remains, scientists from DPAA used dental and anthropological analysis, as well as chest radiograph comparison and circumstantial evidence. Additionally, scientists from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System used mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis.

Capt. Yde’s name is recorded on the Courts of the Missing at the Punchbowl, along with the others who are still missing from the Korean War. A rosette will be placed next to his name to indicate he has been accounted for.

Capt. Yde will be buried in Walnut Creek, California, on April 29, 2024.

For family and funeral information, contact the Army Casualty Office at (800) 892-2490.

To see the most up-to-date statistics on DPAA recovery efforts for those unaccounted for from the Korean War, go to the Korean War Accounting page on the DPAA website at: https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaFamWebKorean.

For additional information on the Defense Department’s mission to account for Americans who went missing while serving our country, visit the DPAA website at www.dpaa.mil, find us on social media at www.facebook.com/dodpaa or https://www.linkedin.com/company/defense-pow-mia-accounting-agency.

Yde’s personnel profile can be viewed at https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaProfile?id=a0Jt00000004q8KEAQ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**FERNANDO FLORES,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 171 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 28th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro RIYERA-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50937.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*619PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Pedro Rivera-Castro raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

**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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Picheth Yoeun CHER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50328.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 11, 2005.

Decided March 28, 2005.

Lawrence S. Middleton, Esq., Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jonathan D. Libby, Deputy FPD FAX, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GIBSON,* GRABER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable John R. Gibson, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Picheth Yoeun Cher appeals the sentence imposed by the district court.

1. The district court did not err in applying a 10-level enhancement for the loss caused by Defendant’s crimes. In the plea colloquy Defendant expressly admitted the amount of loss and the dates of the offense conduct. In that circumstance there is no Sixth Amendment violation and the sentence is consistent with *United States v. Booker,*— U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738,160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

2. The district court’s finding that Defendant does not suffer from an extraordinary impairment is not clearly erroneous. The court recognized its authority to depart downward but, on the basis of the facts, declined to exercise its discretion to do so. We lack jurisdiction to review that exercise of discretion. *United States v. Garcia-Gomez,*380 F.3d 1167, 1174 (9th Cir.2004). Even assuming, without deciding, that after *Booker*a remand may occur in this circumstance, we would not remand for resentencing because we are convinced on this record that, under any potentially applicable standard of review, the sentence imposed is reasonable and the district court would not have imposed a different sentence had it treated the United States Sentencing Guidelines as discretionary.

3. The government concedes that the district court improperly failed to set a schedule of restitution payments and that a remand concerning restitution is required.

4. With respect to the order requiring Defendant to pay all or a part of the court-ordered psychological treatment, as may be directed by the Probation Office, this issue was not raised below. We therefore review for plain error. *United States v. Rearden,*349 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir.2003), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 32, 160 L.Ed.2d 32 (2004). Because there is at least one circuit that has allowed this condition, *United States v. Warden,*291 F.3d 363 (5th Cir.2002), and because the statute does not clearly require a contrary *145conclusion, we cannot say that there was plain error here.

Restitution VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings; sentence otherwise 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### HUFFINES v. WESTMORELAND

No. 68 PC.

Case below: 6 N.C. App. 142.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 18 November 1969.
September 14, 2016

STATE OF MINNESOTA 

IN SUPREME COURT 

Al6-0914 

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against 

Paul Jody Edlund, a Minnesota Attorney, 

Registration No. 0336014. 

ORDER 

fiL--

Om:cEOF 

A...a..u; CUinS 

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition 

for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Paul Jody Edlund committed professional 

misconduct warranting public discipline-namely, misappropriating a client's funds, 

failing to communicate with that client, and failing to cooperate with the Director's 

investigation. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct l.4(a)(4), l.l5(a), l.l5(c)(4), 8.l(b), 8.4(c); 

Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). 

The respondent and the Director have entered into a stipulation for discipline. In it, 

respondent withdraws an answer he previously filed, unconditionally admits the allegations 

in the petition for disciplinary action, and waives his procedural rights pursuant to Rule 14, 

RLPR. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is disbarment. 

This court has independently reviewed the file and approves the jointly 

recommended disposition. 

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, 

1 

-·- . 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Respondent Paul Jody Edlund is disbarred, effective as of the date of this 

order. 

2. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of 

disbannent to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals). 

3. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR. 

Dated: September 14, 2016 

2 

B[r1~'k David R. Stras 

Associate Justice
#### C. CEDAR COVE, INCORPORATED, PLAINTIFF, v. MICHAEL STAUB AND ARCANGELA STAUB, AS LEGATEES, HEIRS AND DEVISEES OF PETER M. STAUB, DECEASED, DEFENDANTS.

Submitted October 16, 1931

Decided January 20, 1932.

Before Justices Campbell, Lloyd and Bodine.

For the motion, *Aaron V. Dawes.*

Contra, *David A. Veeder.*

Pee Curiam.

This is a motion to quash an attachment. The affidavit upon which the writ issued is to the effect that neither of the defendants were at the time of the making of the affidavit resident in the State of New Jersey, and that one of the defendants, Michael Staub, as one of the legatees, heirs and devisees of Peter M. Staub, deceased, owes to the plaintiff the sum of $6,146.29, and that the defendant Arcangela Staub owes in like manner a like sum.

We think the affidavit was insufficient. It apparently is issued under the fifth section of the Attachment act of 1901 *(Comp. Slat., p.*136), which enacts that attachments may issue for the debt of a deceased debtor against *inter alia*the heirs or devisees in all eases in which the writ may have issued against such debtor immediately prior to his decease. There is no averment in the affidavit of any indebtedness by the deceased or that the defendants have assumed or otherwise owe a debt owing by the deceased.

The writ of attachment is quashed, with costs.
Mon, Sep 30 

II 6:15 AM - 6:45 AM Depart Residence, en route DOL 

II 8:00 AM - 8:30 AM Ethics Briefing 

II 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM Meeting with Sandy Allison (OSEC) 

II 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM Daily Staff Meeting 

II 9:00 AM - 9:20 AM Overview Meeting 

II 9:45 AM -10:15 AM Records Management Briefing 

II 10:30 AM -11:00 AM Meeting with Stephen Willertz, OLMS 

II 11:10 AM - 11:30 AM OPA Social Media Meeting 

II 11:30 AM -11:50 AM Scheduling Overview Meeting 

II 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM Lunch 

II 1:20 PM - 1:35 PM Depart DOL, en route WH 

II 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM WH: Swearing In 

II 3:00 PM - 3:15 PM Depart WH, en route DOL 

II 3:20 PM - 3:45 PM Human Resources Briefing 

II 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM FYI: All Employee Email & Personnel Press Release 

II 4:00 PM - 4:30 PM Agency Head Meeting 

II 4:40 PM - 4:45 PM Depart Secretary's Office, en route OPA Studio 

II 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM Official and Passport Photo 

II 5:00 PM - 5:05 PM Depart OPA Studio, en route Secretary's Office 

II 5:15 PM - 5:45 PM Meeting with Brenda Russell (OSEC) 

II 6:00 PM - 6:20 PM Wrap Up Meeting 

II 7:00 PM - 7:30 PM Depart DOL, en route Residence
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.F., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 

TORONTO AMF, Ontario Canada, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0619

Issued: May 3, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On March 23, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a September 6, 2022 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-0619.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the September 6, 2022 decision was March 5, 2023. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until March 23, 2023, more than 180 days after 

the September 6, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0619

is untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

explained his failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0619, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0619 is dismissed.

Issued: May 3, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
NUMBER 13

- 1 7
- 00 164

- CV


### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ SEARS, ROEBUCK AND C O. , A ppellant ,

v.
TERESA HAYS , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## ORDER
Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides

Order Per Curiam

On October 24, 2018 , appellant, Sears, Roebuck and Co ., filed a notice of
bankruptcy filing and imposition of automatic stay in this appeal. According to the notice,
appellant filed a bankruptcy petition on October 15, 2018 , in the Unit ed States Bankruptcy

Court for the Southern District of New York

.2

Upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, an automatic stay becomes effective which
prohibits the commencement or continuation of any judicial action or proceeding against
the debtor and any property within the debtor's bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C.A. §
362(a). Pursuant to Rule 8.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appeal is
suspended. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 8.2.
Accordingly, this appeal is ABATED until further order of this Court. Any
documents filed subsequent to the bankruptcy petition will remain pending until the appeal
is reinstated. The parties are directed to take such action as is appropriate to advise the
Court of any change in the status of the bankruptcy proceeding which would affect the
status of this appeal, including but not limited to, the filing of a motion to reinstate pursuant
to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.3. See id. 8.3.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 29t h day of November , 20 1 8.
#### MRS. EVELYN W. ESTRIDGE, Plaintiff and BIVENS FLOOR & CABINETS., INC., and HAWTHORNE SALES COMPANY, Intervenors v. CRAB ORCHARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., and R. S. PATE, Defendants

No. 44

(Filed 30 January 1970)

ON certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals in 5 N.C. App. 604.

The plaintiff, a creditor of Fred Denson and wife, brought this .action to have a transfer by them to Crab Orchard Development Company of their equity in certain certificates of deposit declared to be an assignment for the benefit of creditors so as to enable the plaintiff to share in the proceeds thereof. The intervenors are judgment creditors of Denson seeking the same relief. They adopt the allegations of the original complaint. The defendants filed answers pleading, among other things, the statute of limitations. No reply was filed. The Superior Court, upon motion of Crab Orchard for judgment on the pleadings, dismissed “the actions of all plaintiffs” on the ground that the cause of action is barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

*Henry E. Fisher, Attorney for the plaintiff; Craighill, Rendleman & Clarkson, by Hugh B. Campbell, Jr., Attorneys for the Inter-venors.*

*Barnes <& Dekle, by W. Faison Barnes, Attorneys for the defendant, Crab Orchard Development Company, Inc.*

Laice, J.

This is a companion case to *Wilson v. Crab Orchard Development Company,*decided this day. While not identical, the complaint of the original plaintiff, adopted by the intervenors, is substantially the same as the complaint filed in the *Wilson*case. The position of the intervenors in this action is, in all material respects, the same as that of the plaintiff in the *Wilson*case. The position of the original plaintiff in this action is subject to the further infirmity that she does not allege her own ignorance of the transfer from the Densons to Crab Orchard at the time it was made, 28 October 1960. The answer of the defendant alleges that shares of Crab Orchard stock wore actually offered to this plaintiff by Denson and she refused to accept them. The plaintiff filed no reply to this allegation.

Frost, Olive and Denson, who were parties defendant in the *217*Wilson*case, are not parties to the present action. R. S. Pate, who is a party defendant to this action, was not made a party to the *Wilson*case, but, for the reasons mentioned in our opinion in the *Wilson*case, the present complaint alleges no cause of action in this plaintiff against -him.

For the reasons set forth in our opinion in the *Wilson*case the judgment in the present action is

Affirmed.

Moobe, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 64 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 64 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 2 of 2
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00251-CV

LATASHA AND CEDRIC GARDNER,

Appellants

V.

FRANCISCO AND YANCY MORAZAN, 

Appellees

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

of Denton County (CV-2021-02410-JP)

May 5, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that appellants Latasha and Cedric Gardner shall pay all 

costs of this appeal, and that these costs be paid from the cash deposits in lieu of 

bond made with the clerk of the trial court, for which let execution issue.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                              5

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                        11,355,394
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,224,339
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              13,579,733
<PP&E>                                         7,915,431
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,759,015
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                19,094,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,832,947
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                    13,261,456
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  19,094,403
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             116,170,378
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,069,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              115,100,158
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          115,100,158
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                 115,100,158
<EPS-BASIC>                                        65.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0




</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

128825 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver & (45) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, HETTA MOORE, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 128825 COA: 251822 Macomb CC: 98-003538-DO CLARKE A. MOORE, deceased, by the Estate of Clarke A. Moore, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of September 29, 2005, the application for leav e to appeal was held in abeyance pending th e decision in Sweebe v Estate of Orville Sweebe (Docket No. 126913). On order of the Court, the opin ion having been issued on April 26, 2006, 474 Mich ___ (2006), the app lication is again considered, a nd it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The stay of proceedings or dered on September 29, 2 005 is DISSOLVED.

l0619 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2006

Clerk
#### STATE v. MATTHEWS

No. 98.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 592.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 1 June 1976.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 29, 2015

p0921

Order 

Clerk

September 29, 2015

150510(61)

TAMARA FILAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 150510

COA: 316822

Wayne CC: 12-016693-NF

MEEMIC INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 28, 2015 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.