alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The HONORABLE CHARLES B. KORNMANN, United States District Judge

for the District of South Dakota.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3158

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Juvenile TSB, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 4, 2000 Filed: February 11, 2000

___________ Before LOKEN, BRIGHT, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. The district court 1 adjudicated TSB to be a juvenile delinquent based upon the finding that he had caused and attempted to cause a child under the age of 12 to engage in a sexual act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(c), 2246(2), and 5032. The court sentenced TSB to 3 years probation. TSB’s counsel has filed a brief, in which she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, and has moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We granted TSB permission to file a pro-2-

se supplemental brief, and after consulting with the Federal Public Defender for the District of South Dakota, he has declined to do so.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in an appeal from a juvenile adjudication, we consider whether the evidence is sufficient to convince the district court of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the court’s determination, and accepting all reasonable inferences supporting the determination. See United States v. L.B.G. , 131 F.3d 1276, 1277 (8th Cir. 1997). In this case, the court disbelieved TSB’s testimony in favor of the government witnesses’ testimony, and carefully considered the weaknesses in the government

witnesses’ testimony elicited by the defense. We conclude that the court didnot err in finding TSB guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. E.R.B. , 86 F.3d 129, 130 (8th Cir. 1996) (district court, as finder of fact in juvenile case, weighs credibility of witnesses and any contradictions between testimony and other evidence; court’s credibility findings can almost never be clearly erroneous).
After review of counsel’s Anders brief, along with our independent review of the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30927]



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


FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License; Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean 
freight forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 510).
    Person knowing of any reason why any of the following applicants 
should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Freight Forwarders, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.

Gaeli, Inc., 8181 NW 36th Street, Suite 9A, Miami, FL 33166, Officers: 
Dany Weil, President, Ira Weil, Vice President
Red Hot Transport, 618 Noe Street, San Francisco, CA 94114, Gina 
Fregosi, Sole Proprietor
Dart Express (SPO) Inc., 1162 Cherry Avenue, San Bruno, CA 94066, 
Officers: Teddy Tam, President, Dean Huang, Chief Financial Officer

    By the Federal Maritime Commission.

Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
    Dated: December 15, 1995.
[FR Doc. 95-30927 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FRANKLIN MONFISTON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-468

[October 15, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, Judge; L.T. Case No. 02-10982 CF10B.

Franklin Monfiston, Arcadia, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### STATE v. BAXTER FLETCHER.

(Filed 3 December, 1930.)

Appeal by defendant from *Stach, J.,*at August Term, 1930, of Wilices.

Criminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the defendant, in four separate counts, with prostitution and assignation and with aiding and abetting prostitution and assignation, contrary to C. S., 4357, and 4358.

From an .adverse verdict and judgment entered thereon, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*816*Attorney-General Brunvmiti and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*Trivette & Holshouser and F. J. McDuffie for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

It is conceded >by the Attorney-General that the State’s evidence fails to make out any one of the offenses charged. No useful purpose would be accomplished by setting out the evidence. The motion to nonsuit will be allowed under C. S., 4643.

Reversed.
#### Herbert Sherry, Respondent, v Citibank, N.A., Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 553]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered January 28, 2003, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff stated a cause of action for deceptive practices and false advertising, in violation of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, for the manner in which defendant applied finance charges for its “checking plus” accounts. A fair reading of the complaint shows that plaintiff relied on defendant’s sales literature which stated that “checking plus” permitted custom*336ers to write checks for more than the available balance in their checking accounts, up to the amount of their “checking plus” credit limit, and then “pay interest on only the amount you use.” Such a representation could easily lead a potential customer, such as plaintiff herein, to the reasonable belief that interest would stop accruing once he made a deposit to his checking account sufficient to pay off the amount due on the credit line, without having to do anything further *(see Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85*NY2d 20, 26 [1995]).

Whether plaintiff actually received defendant’s “checking plus account agreement and disclosure” statement is in dispute. But even assuming he had received this document, it did not contain any specifics as to the manner of repayment of the credit lines, and thus did not conclusively establish a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law *(see Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.
**Exhibit 35**

** **

**ITEM 1123 CERTIFICATION**

** **

**I,David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association (the “Servicer”),hereby certify that:**

** **

**(1) Areview of the activities of the Servicer during the fiscal year covered by thisannual report on Form 10-K and of the performance of the Servicer underthe Standard Terms for Trust Agreement, dated as of November 9, 2006,between the Servicer and the depositor (the “Agreement”) has been made under mysupervision;**

** **

**and**

** **

**(2) Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled allits obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout thereporting period, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligation in any material respect, I have specified below each such failureknown to me and the nature and status thereof.**

** **

** **
| Date: March 31,  2010          |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |   |
|                                |   |
| /s/ David J. Kolibachuk             |   |
| David J. Kolibachuk  Vice President |   |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9 - 0 543 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. ROBERT LEWIS WING ,

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 15 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

April 8 2020

04/08/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0543
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs November 1, 2016

JEANIE HOLSCLAW V.IVY HALL NURSING HOME,INC.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Carter County

No. C12784 Jean A. Stanley, Judge

No. E2016-02178-COA-T10B-CV-FILED-DECEMBER 19, 2016

 _________________________________

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J., dissenting. 

I cannot concur in the majority’s conclusion that Judge Stanley’s “personal 

extrajudicial knowledge” created “an appearance of impropriety . . . under Canon 2.11 of 

the Code of Judicial Conduct necessitating recusal.” Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 

I do not find it necessary to determine whether Judge Stanley acted appropriately 

or not when she contacted Dr. Wayne Mulkey and had a private phone conversation with 

him in an effort to obtain information which would assist her in determining whether to 

grant the appellant’s rule 35 motion. Having said that, I would point out that Judge 

Stanley did not attempt to hide the fact that she had the subject phone conversation. On 

the contrary, she advised the parties of her conversation at the hearing on the rule 35 

motion. In any event and, assuming, solely for the purpose of discussion, that this 

conversation was erroneous, I do not believe that any of this mandates recusal. 

As the majority points out, “[n]othing in the record leads this Court to believe that 

the trial judge in this case holds a prejudice or bias against any party or that the trial judge 

cannot remain impartial despite this communication [with Dr. Mulkey].” I certainly 

agree with that comment. The issue here, however, is whether “the judge’s impartiality 

might reasonably be questioned.” My answer to this is simply “no.” Her action in 

speaking privately to Dr. Mulkey may have been erroneous and may even be reversible 

error,

1

but I do not believe it could or would reasonably lead one to question her 

“impartiality.” 

 

1

See Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810, 821 (Tenn. Cr. App. 1994) (“Rulings of a trial judge, even if 

erroneous, numerous and continuous, do not, without more, justify disqualification.”); see also State v. Cannon, 254 

S.W.3d 287, 308 (Tenn. 2008) (“Even though we hold that the trial court committed reversible evidentiary errors 

with regard to the chain of custody of the pantyhose and the admissibility of M.N.’s out-of-court statements, the 

record does not support the proposition that those decisions resulted from the trial judge’s bias or prejudice against

Defendant.”) 
I would affirm the trial court on the issue of recusal. 

_______________________________

 CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5714 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5714

   To permit commercial applicators of pesticides to create, retain, 
  submit, and convey pesticide application-related records, reports, 
            data, and other information in electronic form.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 14, 2014

Mr. Schrader (for himself and Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To permit commercial applicators of pesticides to create, retain, 
  submit, and convey pesticide application-related records, reports, 
            data, and other information in electronic form.

    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 ``Pest Management Records 
Modernization Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS BY COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS OF 
              PESTICIDES TO COMPLY WITH RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING 
              REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act 
of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i-1) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new subsection:
    ``(h) Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting.--Notwithstanding any 
contrary provision of Federal, State, or local law, commercial 
applicators of pesticides, including commercial applicators of 
restricted use pesticides, may create, retain, submit, and convey a 
pesticide application-related record, report, data, or other 
information in electronic form in order to satisfy any requirement for 
such creation, retention, submission, or conveyance, respectively, 
under any Federal, State, or local law.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Bryan Peery, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Apple REIT Eight, 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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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):



Date: March 5, 2010

/s/ BRYAN PEERY Bryan Peery
Chief Financial Officer
APPLE REIT EIGHT, Inc.


---



QuickLinks
Form TRANSC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

California Northern Bankruptcy Court

In re Debtor(s):

PG&E Corporation

Case No.: 19−30088 DM 11

Chapter: 11

NOTICE OF FILING OF TRANSCRIPT

AND DEADLINES RELATED TO RESTRICTION AND REDACTION

A transcript of the proceeding held on November 19, 2019 was filed on November 20, 2019. The following deadlines

apply:

The parties have until Wednesday, November 27, 2019 to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction

of this transcript. The deadline for filing a request for redaction is Wednesday, December 11, 2019.

If a request for redaction is filed, the redacted transcript is due Monday, December 23, 2019.

If no such notice is filed, the transcript may be made available for remote electronic access upon expiration of the

restriction period, which is Tuesday, February 18, 2020, unless extended by court order.

To review the transcript for redaction purposes, you may purchase a copy from the transcriber,

Jason Gottlieb

Attn: Jason Gottlieb, Dir. of Tran. Ops.

7227 N 16th St. #207

Phoenix, AZ 85020

or you may view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.

Dated: 11/25/19 For the Court:

Edward J. Emmons

Clerk of Court

United States Bankruptcy Court

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4819-1 Filed: 11/20/19 Entered: 11/20/19 13:14:33 Page 1

of 1
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.
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;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; andd.
    
    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
  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: November 7, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Lewis W. Dickey, Jr.Lewis W. Dickey, Jr.Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer 30
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00283-CV

EVERETT A. LAAS 

AND ANNIE K. LAAS,

Appellants

v.

THEODORE R. KEHTEL 

AND JENNIFER C. KEHTEL,

Appellees

From the 369th District Court

Leon County, Texas

Trial Court No. O-12-00496

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 21, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellants that the $205

filing fee in this cause was past due and that the appeal would be dismissed if Appellants

did not either establish the right to proceed without payment of costs or pay the filing fee 

within fourteen days of the date of the letter. No response has been received from 

Appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Laas v. Kehtel Page 2

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 24, 2018

[CV06]
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30926]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Security for the Protection of the Public Indemnification of 
Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation; Notice of Issuance of 
Certificate (Performance)

    Notice is hereby given that the following have been issued a 
Certificate of Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of 
Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation pursuant to the 
provisions of Section 3, Public Law 89-777 (46 U.S.C. 817(e)) and the 
Federal Maritime Commission's implementing regulations at 46 C.F.R. 
part 540, as amended:

The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, Princess 
Cruises, Inc, and P & O Cruises (UK) Limited, 77 New Oxford Street, 
London WCIA 1PP, England, Vessels: CANBERRA, ORIANA and VICTORIA

    Dated: December 15, 1995.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30926 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 5771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01905]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; CTSA Network--Trial Innovation 
Centers (TICs) (U24).
    Date: February 25, 2016.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 
Montgomery County Conference Center Facility, 5701 Marinelli Road, 
North Bethesda, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Rahat Khan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing 
Translational Sciences, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Rm. 1078, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-894-7319, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9c2c1c8c7db9be9cadadb87c7c0c187cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="066d6e676874344665757428686f6e28616970">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

     Dated: January 28, 2016.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-01905 Filed 2-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>