alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCWC-13-0000155

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JIMMY ROBINSON, JR.,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-13-0000155; CR. NO. 11-1-1014)

ORDER AFFIRMING JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner Jimmy Robinson, Jr. (Robinson) seeks review

of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ November 26, 2014 Judgment

on Appeal, entered pursuant to its October 31, 2014 Summary

Disposition Order, which affirmed the Circuit Court of the First

Circuit’s November 28, 2012 Notice of Entry and Judgment. The

Circuit Court adjudged Robinson guilty of Robbery in the First

Degree, in violation of Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-840. 

We accepted Robinson’s application for writ of certiorari and now

affirm the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal.

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0000155

25-AUG-2015

07:42 AM
On certiorari, Robinson contends that the ICA gravely

erred in holding that substantial evidence supporting the verdict

was adduced at trial because he did not have the intent to commit

Robbery in the First Degree. This court has held that

“‘[s]ubstantial evidence’ as to every essential element of the

crime charged is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality

and probative value to enable a man of reasonable caution to

reach a conclusion.” State v. Naeole, 62 Haw. 563, 565, 617 P.2d

820, 823 (1980). The evidence adduced at trial in this case,

including witness testimony and video evidence, was sufficient to

enable a person of reasonable caution to conclude that Robinson

had the requisite intent to commit Robbery in the First Degree.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal

is affirmed. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 25, 2015.

Jason Z. Say

for petitioner

Stephen K. Tsushima

for respondent

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
Case 3:11-cr-00032-MCR   Document 33   Filed 01/23/12   Page 1 of 7

Case 3:11-cr-00032-MCR   Document 33   Filed 01/23/12   Page 2 of 7

Case 3:11-cr-00032-MCR   Document 33   Filed 01/23/12   Page 3 of 7

Case 3:11-cr-00032-MCR   Document 33   Filed 01/23/12   Page 4 of 7

Case 3:11-cr-00032-MCR   Document 33   Filed 01/23/12   Page 5 of 7

Case 3:11-cr-00032-MCR   Document 33   Filed 01/23/12   Page 6 of 7

Case 3:11-cr-00032-MCR   Document 33   Filed 01/23/12   Page 7 of 7
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 31 (Thursday, February 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 7436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-708]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology; American Health Information Community Meeting

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 12th meeting of the American Health 
Information Community in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.) The American Health Information 
Community will advise the Secretary and recommend specific actions to 
achieve a common interoperability framework for health information 
technology (IT).

DATES: March 13, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Hubert H. Humphrey building (200 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 800.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Visit http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will include presentations by 
the Quality, Population Health and Clinical Care Connections, Consumer 
Empowerment, and Confidentiality, Privacy and Security Workgroups on 
their Recommendations; an update on the Certification Commission for 
Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT); and a panel presentation on 
Privacy and Security issues.
    A Web cast of the Community meeting will be available on the NIH 
Web site at: http://www.videocast.nih.gov/.
    If you have special needs for the meeting, please contact (202) 
690-7151.

    Dated: February 7, 2007.
Judith Sparrow,
Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and 
Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology.
[FR Doc. 07-708 Filed 2-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
Important Steps for Using 

NIOSH-Approved N95 

Filtering Facepiece Respirators 

The N95 filtering facepiece respirator is the most commonly 

used type of NIOSH-approved respirator in healthcare. If you rely on 

an N95 for protection, there are a few important steps for you to take: 

Step 1 

Follow the guidance of your 

organization's respiratory 

protection program, including 

medical clearance 

Step 2 

Be sure you are using a 

NIOSH-approved respirator 

Step 3 

You can find a list of approved N95 

Respirators on the NIOSH website, 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/ 

respirato rs/disp_part/n951ist1. html 

Get fit tested on an annual basis 

See this video from OSHA for more 

information on fit testing, www. 

osha.gov/video/respiratory_ 

protection/fittesting .html 

Step 5 

Step 4 

Know how to use the respirator 

safely and effectively 

For more information, see the 

manufacturer's instructions that 

were included with the respirator as 

well as the NIOSH Trusted-Source 

website, http://Knowits.NIOSH.Gov 

Know how to don and doff the 

specific brand and model of 

respirator you are using 

See the manufacturer's instructions 

included with the respirator
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 2362

MICHAEL ANTRANTRINO LEE

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

D. BISHOFF, Lieutenant; B. GAINER, Correctional Officer; CAPTAIN YEAGER;

LT. YARBER, LIEUTENANT (acting SIA at time)

,

Defendants

- Appellees

,

a nd

MERRICK GARLAND, United States Attorney General

,

Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia

, at Wheeling

. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. ( 5:21

- cv

- 00054

- JPB

- JPM )

Submitted : February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael Antrantrino Lee , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Michael Antrantrino Lee seeks to appeal the district court’s order issued in his

pending civil action denying his motion to appoint counsel. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 4 7 (1949). The order Lee seeks to appeal is neither a final order

nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction. We deny Lee’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
In Re Leo Pratt, No. S0844-02 Cncv (Katz, J., June 10, 2004)

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is un official. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the accompanying data included in the Vermont trial cou rt opinion database is not guaranteed.]

STATE OF VERMONT

Chittenden County, ss. :

IN RE LEO PRATT

ENTRY

Petitioner was found guilty and sentenced on three separate counts. For burglary, he was sentenced 5 to 15 years to be served concurrently with his second sentence of 0 to 5 for possession of sto len goods. Four months later, petitioner was sentenced 2 to 5 years for ob struction of justice. This sentence was ordered to be concurrent with the poss ession of stolen goods but (and here is the rub) consecutive to his burgla ry sentence. Petitioner argues that these sentences are “logically impossib le” to add together and that the Department of Corrections has incorrectly calculated his total sentence. We beg to differ.The problem posed by petitioner’s sentence structu re is essentially

one of distribution. To clarify, we will express h is sentence in somewhat algebraic terms:

1. (Possession) concurrent with ((Burglary) consecu tive to (Obstruction))

2. (0–5yrs.) concurrent with ((5–15yrs.) consecutiv e to (2– 5yrs.))

The consecutive sentences can then be added:

3. (0–5yrs.) concurrent with (7–20yrs.)

Thus, petitioner’s sentence comes out to a 7 year m inimum– 20 year maximum period, which is what the Department of Cor rections calculated.

In the alternative we could express petitioner’s se ntence as:

4. ((0–5yrs.) concurrent with (5–15yrs.)) consecutive to ((2–5yrs.) concurrent with (0–5yrs.))

But this is merely the equivalence of lines 1 and 2 with the (0–5yrs.) term distributed among the consecutive sentence terms. Or as a logician might write it: p v (q & r) is equivalent to (p v q) & (r v p).

In other words, it is logically quite possible to add petitioners sentence without ignoring or altering the terms of the sentence. That iswhat the Department of Corrections did, consistent with the statutory

language, 13 V.S.A. § 7032(a), and the applicable r egulations.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Dated at Burlington, Vermont________________, 2004

.

________________________ Judge
#### STATE v. EPPLEY

No. 22.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 314.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 31 July 1972.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5484 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5484

  To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to prohibit a court 
 from making an award of costs to a defendant except on a finding that 
                  an action was brought in bad faith.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 2018

    Mr. Cartwright (for himself and Ms. Jackson Lee) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
  Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to prohibit a court 
 from making an award of costs to a defendant except on a finding that 
                  an action was brought in bad faith.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Debt Collections Practices 
Clarification Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION THAT NO AWARD OF COSTS MAY BE MADE AGAINST 
              CONSUMERS EXCEPT WHERE ACTION BROUGHT IN BAD FAITH.

    Section 813(a)(3) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 
U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``A 
court may make an award of costs or attorney fees to the defendant only 
after finding that an action under this section was brought in bad 
faith and for the purpose of harassment, and may not make an award of 
costs or attorney fees otherwise.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 28, 2007)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 9225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-936]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 28, 2007 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 9225]]


                Presidential Determination No. 2007-12 of February 7, 
                2007

                
Implementation of Sections 603 and 604 of the 
                Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 
                (Public Law 107-228)

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Consistent with the authority contained in section 604 
                of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 
                2003 (Public Law 107-228) (the ``Act''), and with 
                reference to the determinations set out in the report 
                to the Congress transmitted pursuant to section 603 of 
                the Act, regarding noncompliance by the Palestine 
                Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian 
                Authority with certain commitments, I hereby impose the 
                sanction set out in section 604(a)(2), ``Downgrade in 
                Status of the PLO Office in the United States.'' This 
                sanction is imposed for a period of 180 days from the 
                date hereof or until such time as the next report 
                required by section 603 of the Act is transmitted to 
                the Congress, whichever is later. You are authorized 
                and directed to transmit to the appropriate 
                congressional committees the report described in 
                section 603 of the Act.

                Furthermore, I hereby determine that it is in the 
                national security interest of the United States to 
                waive that sanction, pursuant to section 604(c) of the 
                Act. This waiver shall be effective for a period of 180 
                days from the date hereof or until such time as the 
                next report required by section 603 of the Act is 
                transmitted to the Congress, whichever is later.

                You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this 
                determination to the Congress and to publish it in the 
                Federal Register. 
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, February 7, 2007.

[FR Doc. 07-936
Filed 2-27-07; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
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

In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Soy Energy,
LLC (the Company) for the quarter ended January 31, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Charles Sand, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                    
| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
 Company.

| |                                                      | 
| | ---------------------------------------------------- | 
| | /s/ Charles
 Sand                                    | 
| |                                                      | 
| | Charles
 Sand, President and Chief Executive Officer
| | (Principal Executive Officer)                       
| |                                                     
| | Dated: March
 22, 2011                              

---
<page>
					       			    	                     EXHIBIT 31.01
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Walter Davis, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Morgan
Stanley Managed Futures LV, L.P.;

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;

    c)	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; and

   d)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant?s
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant?s most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant?s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the registrant?s internal control over
financial reporting; and


<page>
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 the 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; and

   b)	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:   August 14, 2009    By: /s/	Walter Davis
		Walter Davis
                                  	President,
	 	Demeter Management LLC,
                                 	general partner of the registrant
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  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Laufer Bridge Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joel Stohlman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Joel Stohlman Joel Stohlman Title: Chief Executive Officer   August 12, 2010
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7967

TOBIN J. JONES, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus GENE JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-466-3)
Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: October 5, 2005
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barbara Lynn Hartung, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tobin J. Jones appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). Jones alleged the following claims: (1) The magistrate judge applied the wrong standard of review when he held a hearing on Jones’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel did not pursue a “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense; (2) Defense counsel was ineffective when he withdrew notice of a “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense and proceeded to a jury trial; (3) Defense counsel was ineffective in preparing for or countering trial testimony from a jail house informant that Jones confessed; (4) The prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), when it failed to disclose Jones’s confession to the expert who evaluated Jones’s sanity. By order, we granted a certificate of appealability as to Claims (1), (2), and (4). The Respondent has filed an informal preliminary brief as to those claims, and Jones has filed a reply brief. After reviewing the parties’ filings and the record on appeal, we conclude Claim (1) is meritless, and we affirm the magistrate judge’s actions as to that claim. As for Claims (2) and (4), we affirm the magistrate judge’s disposition of those claims based upon the reasoning of the magistrate judge. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss as to Claim (3) based upon the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Jones v. Johnson , No.- 3 - CA-03-466-3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CHARLES CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-278/RS-EMT

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION

OF AMERICA, a foreign corporation

doing business in Florida. 

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Before me is the Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 26). 

Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. 16.2 it is ordered: 

1. The case is dismissed with prejudice

2. The clerk is directed to close the case. 

ORDERED on February 11, 2011

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE