alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7927
MALCOLM OMAWALE ABDULLAH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL B. MOORE; OMAR SHAHEED; WILLIAM D. CATOE; RALPH S. BEARDSLEY; TOM SMITH, Detective, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-1028-10-21BD) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 18, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Malcolm Omawale Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se. Larry Cleveland Batson, Robert Eric Petersen, William Ansel Collins, Jr., Byron Ronald Roberts, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Abdullah v. Moore , No. CA96-1028-10-21BD (D.S.C. Nov. 27, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case 2:17-cr-01425-GMS Document 1 Filed 09/22/17 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:17-cr-01425-GMS Document 1 Filed 09/22/17 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:17-cr-01425-GMS Document 1 Filed 09/22/17 Page 3 of 3
#### William DUDLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 47456.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 8, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 29, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied April 26, 1994.

Susan L. Hogan, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals from the denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.

The denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Order entered October 14, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 00357
- CV
DAVID BLAIR , Appellant

V. THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, TX

ROSELAND ESTA TES , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 20
- 01421
- D

O RDER On September 26, 2022, after court reporter Coral L. Wahlen informed the Court that the reporter’s record had not been requested, w e directed appellant to file, within ten days, written verification of a request

. Although we cautioned him that failure to comply could result in the appeal being submitted without the record, see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c), appellant has not complied. Acc ordingly, we ORDER the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See id.As the clerk’s record has been filed, we ORDER appellant to file his brief

no later than November 14, 2022.
/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
#### Terrence FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 61430.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Seven.

Oct. 20, 1992.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 19, 1992.

Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 18, 1992.

*760David C. Hemingway, Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

KAROHL, Chief Judge.

Defendant appeals denial of his 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. He contends his original guilty plea was involuntary and alleges ineffective assistance of counsel because he was not given an adequate opportunity to discuss his case with counsel. We affirm.

Our review of a judgment on a Rule 24.035 motion is limited to a determination of whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j). The motion court’s findings, conclusions, and rulings are clearly erroneous only if a review of the entire record leaves a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. *Simpson v. State,*779 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Mo.App.1989).

In the current case, the state agreed to reduce the charges on one count. Defendant then attempted to enter an *Alford*plea. When the court refused to accept this plea, defense counsel and defendant discussed the matter off the record. Rather than proceed to trial, defendant chose to plead guilty. The findings of the motion court are supported by the record. Consultation was allowed, not denied. Moreover, defendant was questioned extensively at the plea hearing about his attorney’s performance. He consistently answered that he had received satisfactory assistance. Additionally, defendant expressly stated that no one had coerced his guilty plea. Therefore, the motion court’s findings are supported, not refuted, by the record from the guilty plea hearing.

Judgment affirmed.

PUDLOWSKI and CRANDALL, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12157]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Committee Meeting Notice (School of the Americas)

AGENCY: School of the Americas, Training and Doctrine Command.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 10 (a) (2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, Public Law (92-463), announcement is made of the 
following committee meeting:

    Name of Committee: School of the Americas (SOA) Subcommittee of 
the Army Education Advisory Committee.
    Dates of Meeting: 29 and 30 May 1996.
    Time of Meeting: 0900-1600 on 29 May, and 0900-1130 on 30 May 
1996.
    Place of Meeting: School of the Americas, Building 35, Fort 
Benning, GA.
    Proposed Agenda: Orientation and current School of the Americas 
issues.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
All communications regarding this subcommittee should be addressed to 
Lieutenant Colonel Willie G. Story, U.S. Army School of the Americas, 
Attention: ATZB-SAD, Fort Benning, Georgia, 31905-6245, or telephone 
(706) 545-3491.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. Purpose of Meeting: The newly-constituted SOA subcommittee will 
receive an orientation and review and discuss current issues, 
particularly proposed legislation regarding SOA.
    2. Meeting of the Advisory Committee is open to the public. Due to 
space limitations, attendance may be limited to those persons who have 
notified the Committee Management Office in writing at least 5 days 
prior to the meeting date of their intent to attend.
    3. Any member of the public may file a written statement with the 
committee before, during, or after the meeting. To the extent that time 
permits, the subcommittee chairman may allow public presentations of 
oral statements at the meetings.
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-12157 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
EXHIBIT 32.3

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UCFH I FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCFH I Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
R. Sprouls certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 13, 2007



By:

/s/ JOHN R. SPROULSJohn R. SproulsPresident (Principal Executive Officer)
## FILED coura OF ' 

### iVISO S

II 

### 2714 Ji.IN 

### 24 

## AH 9: 06 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGT DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 44439 - 9 -II Respondent, v. JESSE L. SPENCER, Appellant. UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MAXA, J. —

### Jesse Spencer appeals from thejudgment and sentence imposed following his conviction for unlawful possession of a machine gun.' He argues that: ( 1) he received 

### ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel requested and received ajury instruction on unwitting possession, (

### 2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on unanimity, and (3) the 

### trial courterred in finding that he hadthe abilityto pay legal financial obligations. The State concedes that Spencer received ineffective assistance of counsel because the 

### unwitting possession instruction shiftedthe burden ofproofto Spencer. State v. Carter, 127Wn. App. 713, 717 -18, 112 P. 3d 561 ( 2005). We accept the State' s concession, reverse Spencer' s conviction for unlawful possession of a machine gun, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. Because we reverse on the first issue, we need not address Spencer' s second and third issues. 

### 1 Spencerdoes not appeal from his conviction forbailjumping. 1

### A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

We concur: UNT, N, A.G.

J.

2
Order filed July 12, 2022 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00609-CV

____________

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

THE JAMAIL CHILDREN TRUSTS OF 2010, BY CHARLES EDWARD 

LOBB, JR., AS TRUSTEE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 1

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV-0087120

ABATEMENT ORDER

On June 27, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion extend time to file 

appellee’s brief. Appellee’s brief was originally due February 23, 2022. This court 

has granted two motions to extend time to file appellee’s brief. The motion 

explained that appellee requested additional time to file its brief because the parties

are engaged in mediation. The motion to extend time remains pending. Instead, the 

court orders that this appeal be abated for mediation. Accordingly, we issue the 

following order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket until September 12, 2022. The appeal will be reinstated on this 
court’s active docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to dismiss the 

appeal or other dispositive motion. The court will also consider an appropriate 

motion to reinstate the appeal filed by any party, or the court may reinstate the 

appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Wilson.
TKP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0346

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DAVID THOMAS WEISBARTH, II,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time

to and including August 19, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file the 

State’s response.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 13 2020

07/13/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0346
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Shurron WILLIAMS, Appellant.

No. 62767.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Oct. 26, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 9, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Jan. 25, 1994.

John Klosterman, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., F. Martin Dajani, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Shurron Williams appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of second-degree murder in violation of § 565.021 RSMo 1986 and armed criminal action in violation of § 571.015 RSMo 1986. Defendant was sentenced by the court to thirty years imprisonment on the second degree murder count and three years imprisonment on the armed criminal action count, to be served consecutively.

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.

*596The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 352 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 352

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 23, 2009.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1145) to implement a National Water Research and Development 
Initiative, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science 
and Technology. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science and Technology 
now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause 10 of 
rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 249 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 249

     Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the 
  Department of Veterans Affairs should take full responsibility for 
  financing the health care benefits earned by veterans with service-
                        connected disabilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2009

 Mrs. Lummis submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the 
  Department of Veterans Affairs should take full responsibility for 
  financing the health care benefits earned by veterans with service-
                        connected disabilities.

Whereas the Federal Government has a moral responsibility to provide health care 
        to veterans with service-connected disabilities;
Whereas any abdication of this responsibility constitutes an affront to disabled 
        veterans across the United States; and
Whereas many disabled veterans purchase supplemental insurance coverage for 
        themselves and their families to meet health care needs not covered by 
        the benefits they earned through their military service: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) the Department of Veterans Affairs should take full 
        responsibility for financing the health care benefits earned by 
        veterans with service-connected disabilities;
            (2) the purchasing of supplemental health insurance by a 
        veteran should not be grounds for reducing the Federal 
        Government's obligation to such veteran; and
            (3) the Department of Veterans Affairs should not implement 
        policies that discourage disabled veterans from purchasing 
        supplemental health insurance coverage for themselves and their 
        families.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

I, David J. Tucker, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of IntraBiotics
Pharmaceuticals, 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)) 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;

      b) 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 evaluations; and

      (c) 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

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):

      a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls 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: March 19, 2004                           /s/ David J. Tucker
                                               ------------------------
                                               David J. Tucker
                                               Principal Financial Officer
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

OTW DAVIE LLC d/b/a OFF THE WALL GAMEZONE
, Appellant,

v.

TYLER SWERDLOFF, individually and as parent and legal guardian of N.S., a minor

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 2754

[ February 9, 2023 ]

Appeal of a non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael A. Robinson , Judge; L.T. Case

No. CACE22006096

.

Maureen G. Pearcy of Paul R. Pearcy, P.A., Miami, Anthony E. Torrente

and Ali S. Iftikhar of H inshaw & Culbertson LLP, Coral Gables , for appellant.

N eil Rose, Hollywood, and Eric S. Rosen of Rosen Injury Law, Davie

, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., M AY and D AMOORGIAN , JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00398-CR

IN RE LARRY HALEY

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The application for writ of mandamus is denied.1 

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed January 8, 2015

 

1 The application (petition) has numerous procedural deficiencies. It does not include the certification 

required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). The appendix is not sworn, 

and there is no record. See id. 52.3(k), 52.7. It lacks proof of service on the Brazos County District 

Attorney, a Real-Party-in-Interest. See id. 9.5, 52.2. A copy of all documents presented to the Court must 

be served on all parties to the proceeding and must contain proof of service. Id. 9.5. Because of our 

disposition and to expedite it, we will implement Rule 2 and suspend these rules. Id. 2.
In re Haley Page 2

Do not publish

[OT06]