alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Casey Arnold PETTIWAY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

No. 92-SC-977-MR.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Sept. 2, 1993.

J. David Niehaus, Deputy Appellate Defender of the Jefferson Dist. Public Defender, Louisville, for appellant.

Chris Gorman, Atty. Gen., David A. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Appellate Div., Frankfort, for appellee.

SPAIN, Justice.

Casey Arnold Pettiway, the appellant, appeals as a matter of right his conviction by a Jefferson Circuit Court jury of first-degree robbery, for which he was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Subsequently, the sentence was enhanced to twenty years because Pettiway was found to be a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO). This finding was based on Pettiway’s three previous criminal convictions: third-degree burglary (two counts) and receiving stolen property (two counts) on March 14,1989; third-degree burglary on an additional indictment on March 14, 1989; and first-degree bail jumping on October 29, 1990.

The conviction on October 29, 1990, was entered following a plea pursuant to *North Carolina v. Alford,*400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). Pettiway’s counsel objected to the introduction of this conviction based on an *Alford*plea in the PFO hearing, claiming it was inadmissible according to the Kentucky Rules of Evidence. KRE 803(22) and 410. In response, the Commonwealth argued that these exclusions to the hearsay rule exceptions applied only to the “pleas” themselves and not to the resulting “convictions” in the *Alford*scenario. The trial judge agreed with the Commonwealth that the *767mies of evidence limit the introduction of the pleas only as evidence, and allowed the jury to consider this prior *Alford*conviction when ruling on Pettiway’s PFO status.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the Kentucky Rules of Evidence bar a jury from considering convictions obtained through *Alford*pleas when determining whether to enhance the sentences as first-degree PFOs. Appellant argues that if *Alford*pleas were to be excepted from the hearsay exclusion rales, then specific provisions would exist to allow their introduction into evidence. Further, the appellant argues that under an *Alford*plea the defendant does not admit guilt, but merely accepts the punishment. Finally, he argues that an *Alford*plea has no probative value and should be excluded as hearsay.

KRE 803(22) states, “Evidence of a final judgment entered ... upon a plea of guilty ...” is not excluded by the hearsay rules. An *Alford*plea is a “plea of guilty,” regardless of any denial of underlying facts, and clearly constitutes a criminal conviction. Even though KRE 803(22) and 410 exclude the introduction of an *Alford*plea as an admission against interest, this exclusion has no relationship to the use of an *Alford*plea to enhance a sentence in a PFO hearing. Thus, we hold that a conviction obtained by an *Alford*plea is admissible as evidence in determining PFO status, just as is a conviction where the accused has entered a plea of not guilty.

The judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court, in accordance with this opinion, is affirmed.

All concur.
EXHIBIT 2



ATNA RESOURCES LTD. (the Company)

Code of Ethics for Officers



It is the policy of the Company that all officers, including the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, adhere to and advocate the following principles governing their professional and ethical conduct in the fulfillment of their responsibilities:



1.

Act with honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts between his or her personal, private interest and the interest of the Company, including receiving improper personal benefits as a result of his or her position.



2.

Provide stakeholders with information that is accurate, complete, objective, relevant, timely and understandable.



3.

Comply with laws of federal, provincial and local governments applicable to the Company, and the rules and regulations of private and public regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the Company.



4.

Act in good faith, responsibly, with due care, and diligence, without misrepresenting or omitting material facts or allowing independent judgment to be compromised.



5.

Respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of the performance of his or her responsibilities except when authorized or otherwise legally obligated to disclose.  Do not use confidential information, acquired in the course of the performance of his or her responsibilities, for personal advantage.  Do not compete directly or indirectly with the Company.



6.

Proactively promote ethical behavior among subordinates and peers.



7.

Use corporate assets and resources employed or entrusted in a responsible manner.



8.

Advance the Companys legitimate interest and proactively promote high integrity as a responsible member of his or her business team and/or in his or her work environment.
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Radio One, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott R. Royster, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    SCOTT R. ROYSTER
|Scott R. Royster       
|Chief Financial Officer
|Radio One, Inc.        
|March 28, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 122 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15931]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings of the National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis 
Panel:

    Agenda Purpose: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Committee Name: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 2, 1996.
    Time: 3 p.m.
    Place: Parklawn Building, Room 9C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857.
    Contact Person: Phyllis D. Artis, Parklawn Building, Room 9C-26, 
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301, 443-6470.

    Committee Name: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 3, 1996.
    Time: 3 p.m.
    Place: Parklawn Building, Room 9C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857.
    Contact Person: Phyllis D. Artis, Parklawn Building, Room 9C-26, 
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 2087, Telephone: 301, 443-6470.

    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. Applications 
and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute 
a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than fifteen days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 93.242, 
93.281, 93.282)

    Dated: June 17, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-15931 Filed 6-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
1 

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

 Exhibit Description 

1 May 24, 2018 Discovery Letter from Assistant United States 

Attorney Kevin Rapp to counsel for all defendants describing 

government's initial disclosure of documents

 2 October 18, 2016 from Attorney Cristina Arguedas to Deputy 

California Attorney Generals Mailman and Krell re: attorney-client 

privileged documents in People v. Ferrer et al.

 3 Six (6) Letters dated April 26, 2018; May 1, 2018; May 2, 2018; 

May 15, 2018; and May 23, 2018; and June 12, 2018 from Attorney 

Michael Piccareta to Assistant United States Attorney Kevin Rapp 

re: attorney-client privileged documents 

April 26, 2018 letter from Nancy Clarence to Hon. Leo Sorokin, 

U.S. District COurt for the District of Massachusetts

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60048

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALOIN BENITEZ-MENDOZA, also known as Sael Orsos, also known as Alver 

Rian Sosa, also known as Irvin Oslas, also known as Arias, also known as Irvin 

Ariasolsas, also known as Aloin M. Benites, also known as Ramon 

Benitezmendoza, also known as Alver Rian, also known as Alver Soso, also 

known as Alver Sosorian, also known as Bernave Mendes, also known as Eddie 

Rojas, also known as Alver Soso-Rian, also known as Ramon Benitez-Mendoza,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:15-CR-56-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Aloin Benitez-Mendoza appeals his 84-month sentence following his 

guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. The Government moves to dismiss 

the appeal as barred by the appeal waiver or, in the alternative, for a summary 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 3, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60048 Document: 00513621493 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2016
No. 16-60048

2

affirmance. Benitez-Mendoza responds that his appeal waiver should not be 

enforced because it is invalid. 

We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. United States v. 

Burns, 433 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2005). Benitez-Mendoza’s signed plea 

agreement and the rearraignment transcript show that he freely and 

knowingly pleaded guilty and waived his appellate rights. See United States 

v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Guerra, 94 F.3d 

989, 995 (5th Cir. 1996). Benitez-Mendoza’s argument that we should not 

enforce the agreement because it is prospective is unavailing. See United 

States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-68 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. MataRamirez, 562 F. App’x 234, 235 (5th Cir. 2010). Likewise, our precedent rejects 

his argument that his waiver was not voluntary because of the gross disparity 

in bargaining power between a defendant and the Government. See United 

States v. Cobos, 255 F. App’x 835, 837 (5th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. 

Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 729 (5th Cir. 2002) (upholding provision waiving right 

to appeal on any grounds). Last, we have no reason to grant his request that 

we reconsider our routine acceptance of appeal waivers. See Jacobs v. Nat’l 

Drug Intelligence Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s motion for 

dismissal is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The alternative 

motion for summary affirmance is DENIED as unnecessary.

 Case: 16-60048 Document: 00513621493 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2016
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jerry Allen KING, Jr., Defendants Appellant.

No. 18111.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

April 27, 1993.

*801David J. Kueter, Steelville, for defendant-appellant.

Catherine Lange, Pros. Atty., Sidney T. Pearson III, Asst. Pros. Atty., Crawford County, Steelville, for plaintiff-respondent.

PREWITT, Judge.

Following nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of careless and imprudent driving and of speeding. He appeals, contending that the information seeking to charge careless and imprudent driving was insufficient “in that each of the separate charges of careless and imprudent failed to specify that the operation of the vehicle in question was upon a highway” and “failed to provide facts charging manner of careless and imprudent driving.”

Defendant primarily relies upon *State v. Prock,*759 S.W.2d 854 (Mo.App.1988), and *State v. Wren,*622 S.W.2d 31 (Mo.App. 1981). He also cites *State v. Gilmore,*650 S.W.2d 627 (Mo. banc 1983); *State v. Barlett,*394 S.W.2d 434 (Mo.App.1965); *State v. McCloud,*313 S.W.2d 177 (Mo.App.1958) and *State v. Reynolds,*274 S.W.2d 514 (Mo.App.1955).

After appellant’s brief was filed here, *Gilmore*was overruled in *State v. Parkhurst,*845 S.W.2d 31 (Mo. banc 1992). *Parkhurst*also convinces us that whatever support the other cases cited by defendant may give him, their reasoning is no longer valid. In holding an information valid which omitted language in the statute under which the charge was based, the court said at 845 S.W.2d at 35:

> To summarize, the rule that essential statutory elements may not be supplied by intendment or implication has no application where the issue is not timely raised pursuant to Rule 24.04(b). When the issue is raised for the first time after verdict, the indictment or information will be deemed insufficient only if it is so defective that (1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted or (2) the substantial rights of the defendant to prepare a defense and plead former jeopardy in the event of acquittal are prejudiced. In either event, a defendant will not be entitled to relief based on a post-verdict claim that the information or indictment is insufficient unless the defendant demonstrates actual prejudice.

The record does not indicate that the information was questioned under Rule 24.-04(b), nor has defendant demonstrated, or even claimed, actual prejudice. Under these circumstances there is no merit to defendant’s contention.

The convictions are affirmed.

MONTGOMERY, P.J., and GARRISON, J., concur.
H. Res. 971 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 15, 2009. 

Whereas the United States Preventive Services Task Force 

(USPSTF), an independent panel of experts in primary 

care prevention and evidence-based medicine, issued 

guidelines on November 16, 2009, regarding mammography screening for women, including women age 40 to 

49; 

Whereas these guidelines reflect a change from USPSTF 

mammography recommendations issued in 2002; 

Whereas the new guidelines have caused concern among 

many health providers and confusion among many women 

age 40 to 49; 

Whereas the Department of Health and Human Services has 

stated that while the USPSTF has presented some new 

evidence for consideration, the policies of the Department 

remain unchanged; and 

Whereas the Department of Health and Human Services has 

stated that there is a great need for more evidence, more 

research, and more scientific innovation to help women 

prevent, detect, and fight breast cancer: Now, therefore, 

be it 

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that— 
2 

•HRES 971 EH 

(1) the guidelines of the United States Preventive 

Services Task Force (‘‘USPSTF’’) would not prohibit an 

insurer from providing coverage for mammography services in addition to those recommended by the USPSTF 

and should not be used by insurers to deny coverage for 

services that are not recommended on a routine basis; 

and 

(2) the National Cancer Institute should continue to 

invest and provide leadership regarding research to develop more effective screening tools and strategies for 

improving detection of breast cancer. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Cause No. DA 20 - 0551 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. MARGARET BEAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of the Appellant’s Motion for Extension and good cause appearing: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including Friday, October 8, 2021, within which to prepare, file and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal . DATED this ____ day of August , 202 1 .

_________________________________ Montana Supreme Court

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

August 6 2021

08/06/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0551
Exhibit 8

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1990-8 Filed 11/27/23 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1990-8 Filed 11/27/23 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1990-8 Filed 11/27/23 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following registration statements of our report dated February 7, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Radio One, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the annual report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.



|Registration Statements on Form S-3:
|------------------------------------
|                                    
|Registration Number                 
|                                    
|333-47762                           
|333-58436                           
|333-81622                           
|                                    
|Registration Statements on Form S-8:
|                                    
|Registration Number                 
|                                    
|333-78123                           
|333-42342                           
|333-62718                           
|333-100711                          
|                                    
|Registration Statement on Form S-4: 
|                                    
|333-65278                           



/s/ ERNST & YOUNG
LLP



Baltimore, Maryland,

March 28, 2003
**EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

     **18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NORTHWEST CHARIOTS INCORPORATED (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas Dewar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 13, 2009

By: */s/**Douglas Dewar*

Douglas Dewar

Chief Executive Officer and principal executive officer

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

Scott Spear. )

)

Defendant. )

NO. CR18-00422 PHX SPL

ORDER MODIFYING

RELEASE CONDITIONS

Upon Motion (Unopposed) of Defendant, Scott Spear, by and through his attorneys, for an

Order modifying his release conditions, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED modifying Defendant Spear’s release conditions as follows:

1. Defendant Spear may consume alcohol, not to excess; and

2. Defendant Spear is no longer required to participate in mental health counseling.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all prior conditions of release, excepting the abovestated conditions remain the same.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 231-1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David Paul TALLEY, Appellant.

No. WD 46379.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 28, 1995.

Laura G. Martin, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

David P. Talley appeals convictions of first degree robbery and armed criminal action. He received sentences of 15 and 21 years respectively, to be served consecutively as a persistent offender and a class X offender. He also appeals from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion. Issues on appeal include Talley’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant Talley’s motion for a mistrial, which was made after the jury allegedly observed Talley handcuffed in the hallway. Talley also complains that comments made by the prosecution in closing argument warranted a mistrial and that the court abused its discretion in failing to *sua sponte*declare a mistrial. Finally, Talley complains that the post-conviction motion court erred in denying the motion for post-conviction relief because trial *732defense counsel failed to object to the State’s closing argument.

The judgments are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).
**EXHIBIT
      32**
















**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**




















The
      certification set forth below is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule
      15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and with Section 1350 of
      Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Greg Cowan, President and
      Principal Accounting Officer of Rose Explorations Inc. hereby certifies that:





1.
      the
      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Rose Explorations
      Inc.











Dated:  
      February 4,
      2008 **ROSE
      EXPLORATIONS INC., Registrant**




/s/
      Greg
      Cowan


By:
      Greg Cowan, President and Principal Accounting Officer
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 494-3 Filed 03/08/19 Page 1 of 40
| /s/ Kenneth B. Liebscher |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Kenneth B. Liebscher     |   |
| Chief Executive Officer  |   |
|                     |   |
| August 12, 2011          |   |
|                     |   |
| /s/Howard Bouch          |   |
| Howard Bouch             |   |
| Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|                     |   |
| August 12, 2011          |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1053 Referred in House (RFH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1053

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2010

             Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to extend the 
                           termination date.

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MUSEUM ACT.

    Section 4(f) of the National Law Enforcement Museum Act (Public Law 
106-492) is amended by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``13 
years''.

            Passed the Senate May 7, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```