alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE January 12, 2016 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. THOMAS A. ISBELL

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Maury County No. 22225 Stella L. Hargrove, Judge

No. M2015

- 00587

- CCA

- R3

- CD

– Filed March 4, 2016



### _____________________________

T HOMAS T. W OODALL

, P.J., concurring.

I concur in all portions of the majority opinion except the conclusion that the trial court did not violate the holding in Mitchell v. U.S. , 526 U.S. 314 (1999). In Mitchell , the Supreme Court held,

By holding [the defendant’s] silence against her in determining the facts of the offense at the sentencing hearing, the [trial court] imposed an impermissible burden on the exercise of the constitutional right against compelled self

- in crimination.

Id . at 330.

As noted in the majority opinion, the trial court stated in open court when making her sentencing decision:

[I]t is this Court’s position that we never got the truth of what happened. We never got to the truth in this courtroom of what happened to baby
[M.I.]

.

. . . .

We don’t know what happened, but we know two people who know what happened and that would be [Defendant] and the mother. The rest of us

don’t know.

. . . .2

And so we don’t know what happened, but [Defendant] does . I was hoping I might learn today, but I will not learn.

(emphasis added).

I am simply unable to agree that the trial court m erely commented on Defendant’s failure to accept responsibility for the victim’s injury. The trial court stated that

Defendant refused to tell what happened , and not that Defendant refused to accept responsibility for what happened. In my opinion the tri al court violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Mitchell

.

However, Defendant has still failed to show that he is entitled to plain error review. He has failed to show that consideration of the error is required and necessary in

order to do substan tial justice. State v. Smith , 24 S.W.3d 274, 282 (Tenn. 2000).

Defendant received the minimum sentence for his conviction offense as a standard Range I offender. He was not eligible for a sentence alternative that did not mandate total

incarceration. H e was eligible to be considered for sentencing as an especially mitigated offender. However, even though D efendant was eligible, the trial court acted completely within its statutory discretion by not sentencing Defendant as an especially mitigated

offend er. See State v. Bise , 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). Under Bise

, Defendant’s sentence as a standard offender is presumed reasonable. Id

.

Accordingly, I agree that Defendant is not entitled to plain error review.

____________________________ ________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, PRESIDING JUDGE
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 23

- 3006

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Cassandra Hope Hapip

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota

____________

Submitted: March 11, 2024 Filed: May 9, 2024 [U npublished ]

____________ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

In 2021, Cassandra Hope Hapip served time in prison after ple ad ing guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 84 6. After serving her sentence, Hapip-2- violated the terms of her supervised release. The district court 1 sentenced Hapip to twelve months of imprisonment to be followed by a two

- year term of supervised
release. Hapip appeal ed and argu ed the district court procedurally erred and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence

. During the pendency of her appeal, Hapip was released from prison. Because she only challenged her custodial sentence on appeal, there is no longer a case or controversy

. See Owen v. United States , 930 F.3d 989, 99 0 (8th Cir. 2019) (“The mere fact that [a defendant] is serving an unexpired, unchallenged term of supervised release does not sustain an actual controversy.”) . Thus, we dismiss the appeal as moot

.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Daniel M. Traynor, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota.
Exhibit 10.12



SimpleTech, Inc.



Description of Compensatory Arrangements for 2005

Applicable to Named Executive Officers



Set forth below are 2005 annual base pay arrangements applicable to SimpleTech, Inc.s (the Company) current executive officers who will be named in the summary compensation table of the Companys proxy statement for
the 2005 annual meeting of shareholders (Named Executive Officers). These arrangements are in addition to the various other compensatory plans, contracts and arrangements in which the Companys Named Executive Officers participate
and which are filed or incorporated by reference as exhibits to this report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.



|                        |  |                                                                |  |                         |        
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | -------
|Named Executive Officer |  | Title                                                          |  | 2005 Annual Base Salary
|Manouch Moshayedi       |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors |  | $                       | 500,000
|                        |  |                                                               
|Mike Moshayedi          |  | President                                                      |  | $                       | 375,000
|                        |  |                                                               
|Mark Moshayedi          |  | Chief Operating Officer, Chief Technical Officer and Secretary |  | $                       | 440,000
|                        |  |                                                               
|Dan Moses               |  | Chief Financial Officer                                        |  | $                       | 300,000
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9603]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP95-232-000]


Northwest Pipeline Corp.; Notice of Proposed Change in FERC Gas 
Tariff

April 13, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 11, 1995, Northwest Pipeline Corporation 
(Northwest), tendered for filing and acceptance as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet with a 
proposed effective date of May 4, 1995:

Second Revised Sheet No. 265

    Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to propose 
changes to Section 22.3(a) of the Capacity Release provisions contained 
in Northwest's General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff. 
These changes are necessary to conform Northwest's Tariff with the 
capacity release changes made in the Commission's Order No. 577.
    Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon 
Northwest's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory 
commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest said filing should file 
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Sec. Sec. 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests should be filed 
on or before April 20, 1995. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9603 Filed 4-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10372]



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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1108-DR]


Alabama; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1108-DR), dated March 20, 1996, 
and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pauline C. Campbell, Response and 
Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 
DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter 
dated March 20, 1996, the President declared a major disaster under the 
authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State 
of Alabama resulting from severe storms, flooding, and tornadoes on 
March 5-6, 1996, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant 
a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (``the Stafford Act''). I, 
therefore, declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of 
Alabama.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby 
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes, such 
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and 
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the 
designated areas. Public Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation may be 
added at a later date, if warranted. Consistent with the requirement 
that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided 
under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance or Hazard Mitigation 
will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public 
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed 
six months after the date of this declaration.
    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive 
Order 12148, I hereby appoint Glenn C. Woodard of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this 
declared disaster.
    I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Alabama 
to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

Dallas, Macon, and Montgomery Counties for Individual Assistance.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance)
James L. Witt,
Director.
[FR Doc. 96-10372 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
#### Timothy DUGGER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 64920.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 29, 1994.

Lew Kollias, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial after an eviden-tiary hearing of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous; an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
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

Order 

March 6, 2015

150191-2

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150191

COA: 313880

Macomb CC: 2012-000656-FC

KOLIE LANAR MCADOO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150192

COA: 313881

Macomb CC: 2012-003414-FH

KOLIE LANAR MCADOO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

MCCORMACK, J. (concurring).

I concur in the order denying leave to appeal. I write separately to note my unease 

with the expert testimony regarding the toolmark evidence offered by the prosecution. In 

recent years significant doubt has been cast on the reliability and scientific foundation of 

that evidence. According to a 2009 forensic science report from the National Research 

Council of the National Academies, toolmark analysis lacks the empirical and statistical 

work that is needed to support conclusions regarding identity. The report noted that
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.

 March 6, 2015

s0303

2

Clerk

[t]oolmark and firearms analysis suffers from the same limitations [as other 

types of] impression evidence. Because not enough is known about the 

variabilities among individual tools and guns, we are not able to specify 

how many points of similarity are necessary for a given level of confidence 

in the result. Sufficient studies have not been done to understand the 

reliability and repeatability of the methods. [National Research Council of 

the National Academies, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United 

States: A Path Forward (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 

2009), p 154.] 

The report also raised concerns regarding the subjectivity and error rate in toolmark 

analysis, as well as the lack of a precisely defined testing process. Id. at 155. Given 

these criticisms, I believe there are serious questions about whether such evidence has an 

adequate scientific foundation to allow its admission under MRE 702. See Gilbert v 

DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749, 779-783 (2004) (discussing the trial court’s role as 

“gatekeeper” for the admission of expert testimony). I concur in this Court’s order 

denying leave to appeal, however, because this issue is unpreserved and I am not 

convinced that the defendant has demonstrated that he is entitled to relief given the other 

evidence of guilt.

BERNSTEIN, J., joins the statement of MCCORMACK, J.
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

** **

**Section 1350 Certification**

** **

**In connection with this quarterlyreport of ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Barbra E. Kocsis, ChiefFinancial Officer of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the manager ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

** **

1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information containedin this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 14, 2008                      |                 |
|----------------------------------------------|----------------------|
| By                                           | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
| Barbra E. Kocsis                             |                 |
| Chief Financial Officer                      |                 |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |                 |
|                                              |                      |  |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19653-19654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10892]



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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION


Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection 
Request

    Normally on Fridays, the Social Security Administration publishes a 
list of information collection packages that will require submission to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance in compliance 
with Pub. L. 104-13 effective October 1, 1995, The Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995. Since the last list was published in the Federal Register 
on April 26, 1996, the information collections listed below have been 
proposed or will require extension of the current OMB approvals.

(Call the SSA Reports Clearance Officer on (410) 965-4123 for a copy 
of the form(s) or package(s), or write to her at the address listed 
below the information collections.)

    Survey of Employers Regarding A Pre-retirement Satellite 
Broadcast--0960-NEW. The Social Security Administration (SSA) is 
attempting to establish satellite communications with private sector 
employers as an economical and efficient means of providing program 
information and training. SSA will broadcast a pre-retirement seminar 
via satellite and ask employers to provide information on the 
broadcast. The information collected by SSA will be used to determine 
employer

[[Page 19654]]

interest in receiving information by satellite and to determine what 
issues should be covered; i.e., retirement, legislative updates, wage 
reporting training, etc. The respondents are employers who have 
received the satellite transmission.
    Number of Respondents: 10,000.
    Frequency of Response: 1.
    Average Burden Per Response: 5 minutes.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 833 hours.
    Comments and recommendations regarding these information 
collections should be sent within 60 days from the date of this 
publication, directly to the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the 
following address:

Social Security Administration, DCFAM, Attn: Charlotte S. Whitenight, 
6401 Security Blvd., 1-A-21 Operations Bldg., Baltimore, MD 21235

    In addition to your comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden 
estimate, we are soliciting comments on the need for the information; 
its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and 
clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the 
use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.

    Dated: April 25, 1996.
Charlotte Whitenight,
Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-10892 Filed 5-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-P
ex41.htm












Bill of Sale and Promissory Note







I, Loesha Henchall, hereby sell 80,000,000 common shares of FuLuCai Productions Ltd., to James Durward for the sum of US$24,000. I agree that the total consideration for the sale is US$24,000 ($0.0003 per share) and that I accept the below Promissory Note as full payment.







Signed in Calgary this 28th day of April, 2010.







/s/ Loesha Henchall_______________________


Loesha Henchall







Promissory Note







I, James Durward, do hereby promise to pay Loesha Henchall the sum of US$24,000 subject to the following terms and conditions:








	
a)  

	
5% simple annual interest rate;








	
b)  

	
2 year term – the note must be paid back on or before April 30, 2013;








	
c)  

	
The note is secured by 4,800,000 restricted common shares of FuLuCai Productions Ltd;








	
d)  

	
Beyond the security in (c) above, the note is non-recourse.












Signed and agree to in Calgary, this 28th  day of  April, 2010.







_/s/ James Durward_________________________


James Durward
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of the Chief Financial Officer**

**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 WMG Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period endedJune 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven Macri, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated:August 24, 2010
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
SINOCUBATE, INC.




/s/
      Tom Simeo
            
            Date:
      April 2, 2010Tom
      Simeo
              Chief
      Executive Officer, Treasurer,
              Director
      and Secretary
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Otha LIGGINS, Appellant, Otha LIGGINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 61752.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

May 31, 1994.

John A. Klosterman, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment on his conviction by a jury of trafficking drugs in the second degree in violation of § 195.223 RSMo (Supp.1992). Defendant was sentenced as a prior, persistent and class X offender to 30 years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals from the court’s dismissal of his Rule 29.15 motion.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rules 84.16(b) and 30.-25(b).
#### In the Matter of Christopher Tendorf, Appellant, v Catherine Delmonte, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, petition reinstated and matter remitted to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the same memorandum as in *Matter of Tendorf v Delmonte*([appeal No. 1] 162 AD2d 998 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Killeen, J.—custody.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.