alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 26, 2019

v No. 339236 Wayne Circuit Court

AMANDA JENISE HARDY

, LC No. 17

- 002020

- 01

- FH

Defendant

- Appell ant

.

Before: O’B RIEN

, P .J., and B ECKERING and L ETICA , JJ.

L ETICA

, J . ( concurring ).

I concur in the result only. Although I disagree that this issue was preserved below, review under the plain

- error sta ndard does not change the outcome

. D espite the prosecutor’s knowledge of defense counsel’s earlier alleged statement 1 and her skepticism of defendant’ s adamant denial, i nject ing prosecutorial testimony was improper and warrants reversal in this

case

. People v Christensen , 64 Mich App 23, 28

- 29; 235 NW 2d 50 (1975) (a prosecutor engages in misconduct when the prosecutor injects personal knowledge into the proceedings through

testimonial questioning ) ; People v Brocato , 17 Mich App 277, 295; 169 NW2d 483 (1969) (sa me)

.

/s/ Anica Letica

1 Defense counsel’s redirect questioning indicates that defendant never consulted with counsel for such a purpose, but defense counsel’s appellate brief now appears to admit the statement was made, albeit during plea negotiations.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41220 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUCIANO PALENCIA-CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-224-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luciano PalenciaContreras raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.333-105189, 333-33210, 333-44539, 33-77148, 333-114067 and 333-114408, all onForms S-8 of Tufco Technologies, Inc. of our report dated December 3, 2004(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Accounting Standards(“SFAS”) No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” effective October 1,2001), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tufco Technologies, Inc.for the year ended September 30, 2004.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Deloitte & Touche LLP
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 30, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50758 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CANDIDO PEREZ-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-247-6

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Candido Perez-Guzman (Perez) pleaded guilty to count 2 of an indictment charging him with conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens. Perez was sentenced to a 49-month term of imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised release. Perez contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the factual basis of his guilty plea was not sufficient to establish that he conspired to harbor illegal aliens. We review this issue for plain error. See United States v. Vonn , 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002).No. 05-50758 -2- Perez’s argument is based upon his numerous equivocations during the rearraignment and, specifically, on the fact that he denied having personal knowledge of some of the facts recited in the plea agreement. This argument is without merit. Each time Perez equivocated, the magistrate judge confirmed again that Perez was admitting the elements of the offense. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) & (v); United States v. De Jesus-Batres , 410 F.3d 154, 160 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1020, and cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1021, and cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1022 (2006). At no point does Perez contend that there was a reasonable probability that he would not have entered the plea but for error on the part of the district court. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). Perez has not shown that the district court plainly erred in accepting his guilty plea. See Vonn , 535 U.S. at 59. Perez contends that the district court erred in deviating from the guideline range because he groped a female victim. The district court articulated its reasons for its three-month deviation adequately and the non-guidelines sentence reasonably reflected the statutory sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith , 440 F.3d 704, 707–08 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1
 
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
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/ Gerard H. SweeneyGerard H. SweeneyPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: November 7, 2008
 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Brandywine Realty Trust and will be retained by Brandywine Realty Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Rex Allen DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Richard Aaron DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 01-95-00258-CR, 01-95-00259-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District.

May 16, 1996.

Jim Lindeman, Houston, for Appellant.

Calvin Hartman, Houston, for Appellee.

Before SCHNEIDER, C.J., and ANDELL and TAFT, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The appellant in each of these two cases has filed a “Motion Requesting Rule 55 Hearing to Correct Omissions and Errors in Statement of Facts.” The appellants contend that, even after a mandamus proceeding in this Court and two hearings in the trial court, all designed to pry a complete, accurate statement of facts from the court reporter, Phyllis Faykus-Dutton, the statement of facts is still incomplete and inaccurate in several respects.' The appellants support their motions with uncontroverted evidence.

Tex.R.App.P. 55(a), entitled “Inaccuracies on the Statement of Facts,” provides in relevant part:

> [S]hould any dispute arise, after filing in the appellate court as to whether the statement of facts accurately discloses what occurred in the trial court, the appellate court shall submit the matter to the trial court, which shall, after notice to the parties and hearing, settle the dispute and make the statement of facts conform to what occurred in the trial court.

Accordingly, we remand these cases to the trial court for the court to address the appellants’ concerns regarding the completeness and accuracy of the statement of facts. After notice to the parties and a hearing, the trial court shall settle the dispute and, if *128necessary, make the statement of facts conform to what occurred in the trial court.

Because of the court reporter, getting an accurate, complete statement of facts in these cases has been very difficult for all involved. *See, e.g., Davis v. Faykus-Dutton,*No. 01-95-01130-CV (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] October 6, 1995, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication) (granting the relator, Richard Aaron Davis, leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus, and ordering Phyllis Faykus-Dutton, the respondent, to prepare and file with this Court a complete statement of facts); *Davis v. Faykus-Dutton,*No. 01-95-01130-CV (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.], November 27, 1995) (order) (not designated for publication) (issuing writ of attachment for Faykus-Dutton after she failed to comply with previous order to prepare and file complete statement of facts and failed to appear at show-cause hearing to show why she should not be held in contempt for failing to file the statement of facts as ordered). It is therefore with considerable reluctance and sympathy that we burden the trial court with this matter yet again. However, that court is in the best position to resolve this controversy, as clearly contemplated by rule 55(a).

A supplemental record showing the trial court’s actions and rulings shall be filed with this Court no later than June 14,1996.

It is so ORDERED.
----

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| by     |  /s/     Richard J. Cantele, Jr. |                                  | by  | /s/      B. Ian McMahon |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                      | Richard J. Cantele, Jr.               |     |                                             |   | B. Ian McMahon |   |
|   |                                                      | President and Chief Executive Officer |     |                                             |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2868

NSK Corporation:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### Yolanda Lorenza CARREON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 05-93-01797-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

July 8, 1994.

Keith E. Jagmin, Dallas, for appellant.

Karen Wise, Dallas, for appellee.

Before LAGARDE, BURNETT, and MALONEY, JJ.

MALONEY, Justice.

Yolanda Lorenza Carreon pleaded nolo contendere to obscenity. The trial court found the evidence substantiated appellant’s guilt, deferred finding appellant guilty, placed her on probation for twenty-four months, and assessed a $1000 fine. In one point of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in denying her motion for new trial requesting the trial court declare unconstitutional sections 43.21 and 43.23 of the Texas Penal Code. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The information charged appellant with promoting obscene material. She filed no pretrial motions. Appellant and the State entered into a plea bargain agreement. The trial court followed the plea bargain recommendation and placed appellant on deferred adjudication on August 16, 1993. On the same date, appellant filed a motion for new trial. Appellant first asserted that sections 43.21 and 43.23 were unconstitutional in her amended motion for new trial. The trial court overruled the motion for new trial.

Before 1987, a defendant could not appeal from an order deferring adjudication of guilt. *See Ex parte Hernandez,*705 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); *McDougal v. State,*610 S.W.2d 509, 509 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). In 1987, the Texas Legislature amended article 44.01 of the code of criminal procedure to give the State a limited right of appeal. The amendment also gave defendants on deferred adjudication a limited right to appeal. *See Dillehey v. State,*815 S.W.2d 623, 626 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). The code provides:

> Nothing in this article is to interfere with the defendant’s right to appeal under the procedures of Article 44.02 of this code. The defendant’s right to appeal under Article 44.02 may be prosecuted by the defen*189dant where the punishment assessed is in accordance with Subsection (a), Section 3d, Article 42.12 of this code,1 as well as any other punishment assessed in compliance with Article 44.022 of this code.

Tex.Code Crim.PROCANN. art. 44.01© (Vernon Supp.1994). The *Dillehey*court found a legislative intent to allow unadjudicated defendants to “immediately appeal rulings on pretrial motions in compliance with Article 44.02.” *Dillehey,*815 S.W.2d at 625-26. Article 44.01(j) does not allow an unadjudieated defendant to appeal the denial of his motion for new trial. *See Rubio v. State,*843 S.W.2d 184, 186 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, no pet.).

Because appellant challenges only the trial court’s denial of her amended motion for new trial, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

1

. *See*Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp.1994); Tex.Gov’t Code Ann § 311.027 (Vernon Supp.1994); *Dillehey,*815 S.W.2d at 624, n.1.

2

. By order dated December 18, 1985, the court of criminal appeals moved the proviso of article 44.02 to Rule 40(b)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 16532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8020]





                Sunshine Act Meetings



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 1995 / 
Sunshine Act Meetings
[[Page 16532]] 


U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION



``FEDERAL REGISTER'' CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: March 27, 
1995.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 10:00 a.m., March 31, 
1995.

CHANGES IN MEETING: Meeting concerning Protocol Revisions was canceled.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the 
Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-0800.

    Dated: March 28, 1995.
Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95-8020 Filed 3-28-95; 3:47 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 11.1 - Statement re: computation of per-share earnings


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                  12/31/94          12/31/95          12/31/96
                                                                  --------          --------          --------
Primary
<S>                                                               <C>               <C>               <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding                               5,989,712(1)      5,989,712(1)      8,575,912 (1)

Net effect of dilutive stock options
  based on the treasury stock method
  using average market price                                          -                 -                 -
                                                                  ---------         ---------        ----------
Total                                                             5,989,712         5,989,712         8,575,912
                                                                  =========         =========        ==========
Net loss                                                           (707,614)         (956,125)      (15,898,897)

Net loss per share                                                     (.12)             (.16)            (1.85)
                                                                  =========         =========        ==========

Fully diluted

Weighted average shares outstanding                               5,989,712(1)      5,989,712(1)      8,575,912 (1)

Net effect of dilutive stock options-
  based on the treasury stock method
  using the higher of ending or average market price                   -                 -                 -
                                                                  ---------         ---------        ----------

Total                                                             5,989,712         5,989,712         8,575,912
                                                                  =========         =========        ==========

Net loss                                                           (707,614)         (956,125)      (15,898,897)
                                                                    ========        =========        ==========

Net loss per share                                                     (.12)             (.16)            (1.85)
                                                                    ========        =========        ==========

</TABLE>


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

(1)  Prior to January 16, 1996 the Company was a subsidiary of Central Health
     Holding Company, Inc. and had only 22 shares of common stock issued and
     outstanding. The 5,989,712 shares issued in the reorganization of the
     Company on January 16, 1996 have been treated as outstanding for all
     periods presented.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wanzo Wallace, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Same memorandum as in *People v AJS Merchandising*(162 AD2d 990 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, DiFlorio, J.—obscenity, third degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-4474

Valmet, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September_2019.pdf. 

An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the exclusion notice. The scope of the exclusion is governed by the scope of the 10-digit HTSUS 

subheadings and product descriptions in the annex to the product exclusion notice, and not by the 

product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4022

Enerpac:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
ACCEPTED 01-14-00447-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/20/2015 1:36:44 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK