alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

KENNETH A. GORE MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1776-97-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON JUNE 23, 1998 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH Dennis F. McMurran, Judge Frederick M. Quayle (Elizabeth B. Fitzwater, on brief), for appellant. Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Kenneth A. Gore (defendant) was convicted in a bench trial of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. On appeal, he contends the evidence was insufficient to show his constructive possession of the firearm. Because we find the evidence was sufficient, we affirm. The parties are fully conversant with the record in the case and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. "Proof that appellant possessed the gun . . . either actually or constructively, was sufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon."

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - Archer v. Commonwealth , 26 Va. App. 1, 11-12, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831 (1997) (citing Blake v. Commonwealth , 15 Va. App. 706, 708-09, 427 S.E.2d 219, 220-21 (1993)). For a conviction based upon constructive possession to stand, "the Commonwealth must point to evidence of acts, statements, or conduct of the accused or other facts or circumstances which tend to show that the [accused] was aware of both the presence and character of the [item] and that it was subject to his dominion and control." Powers v. Commonwealth , 227 Va. 474, 476, 316 S.E.2d 739, 740 (1984). Defendant analogizes his case with that of Hancock v.

Commonwealth , 21 Va. App. 466, 465 S.E.2d 138 (1995). In

Hancock , the defendant sat in the back seat of a car and the gun was found underneath the seat directly in front of him. The evidence showed that if Hancock had not looked down under that seat, he would not have necessarily known about the gun. Because the Commonwealth did not exclude that possibility, his conviction

was reversed. In the instant case, defendant was driving the car when it was pulled over. The car was registered to his wife, only they possessed keys and only he and his wife ever drove the car. The handgun was found in the glove compartment. Defendant reached into the glove compartment to retrieve the registration while the gun was in that glove compartment. He admits he saw the gun and yet said nothing to the police officer. At that moment he had both knowledge of the gun and exercised dominion and control over- 3 - it, which is what the statute requires. See Code § 18.2-308.2. Because the Commonwealth proved defendant constructively possessed the firearm, his conviction is affirmed. Affirmed.
Order entered February 12, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01179-CR

DERICK DEWAYNE EVANS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F1001193W

ORDER

On February 7, 2014, appellant filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s 

Motion for Rehearing. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that the time for 

filing appellant’s motion for rehearing is extended from February 7, 2014, to February 21, 2014.

/David Lewis/

DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANIBAR PALACIOS-HERNANDEZ

a/k/a MANUEL GOMEZ-LOPEZ,

Defendant(s).

 /

Case Nos. 09-CR-20083-1

 09-CR-20266-1

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST

FOR IMMEDIATE DEPORTATION AND/OR REMOVAL

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on June 16, 2010.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

On August 10, 2009, Defendant was sentenced to 33 months on Case No. 09-CR-20083-

1, and on Case No. 09-CR-20266-1 he was sentenced to 4 months to run consecutive to the

sentence imposed on 09-CR-20083. 

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s request for “possible immediate deportation

and/or removal pursuant to Criminal Alien Deportation Improvement Act 668 of 1995.”

Defendant asserts that he was sentenced to a prison term of 37 months, and he alleges that he

has a total of 10 months credit time served with a projected release date of October 18, 2011.
2

The government has filed a response to Defendant’s request objecting to his request.

The Court is not persuaded that his request should be granted.

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s request for immediate deportation and/or

removal is DENIED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Anibar Palacios-Hernandez

 a/k/a Manuel Gomez-Lopez, #34161-177

CI NE OHIO CORR CTR

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

2240 HUBBARD RD.

YOUNGSTOWN, OH 44501

Michael R. Mueller

Assistant U.S. Attorney
SECOND AMENDMENT
                                      TO 
                           MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT


     THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is made 
and entered into as of July 1, 1997, by and between CFA MANAGEMENT, INC., a 
Florida corporation ("Manager"), and CAROLINA LUBES, INC., a Florida 
corporation ("Owner").

RECITALS:

A.  Manager and Owner are parties to that certain Amended and Restated
Management Agreement, dated August 15, 1988, as amended by that certain 
Amendment to Management Agreement dated September 9, 1993 (the "Agreement").

B.  Manager and Owner have agreed to modify the standard method of 
calculating fees owed to Manager as compensation under the Agreement for the 
three (3) month period ending September 30, 1997; and
 
C.  Manager and Owner desire to memorialize such modification on the 
terms and conditions set forth herein. 

    NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and 
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Owner and Manager agree as 
follows:

1.  The parties hereby agree that for the three (3) month period ending 
September 30, 1997, the calculation of the Management Fee shall be $ 
52,579.52.
 
2.  All terms and conditions of the Management Agreement not amended by 
this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect except to the 
extent that they must be modified to effectuate the amendment 
contemplated by this instrument.  All defined terms shall have the same 
meaning as in the Management Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.
 
3.  Nothing contained herein shall imply or suggest similar 
modifications to the Agreement will be made in the future.  
 
4.  This instrument shall be governed by and construed in accordance 
with the laws of the State of Florida.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Manager and Owner have executed this Amendment 
as of the day and year set forth above. 


Owner:						Manager:

CAROLINA LUBES, INC.				CFA MANAGEMENT, INC.
					 
    /s/ Stephen P. Conway                    /s/ Jerry B. Conway
By: _________________________		By: _________________________
    Stephen P. Conway 				Jerry B. Conway,
    President 						President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE ANCHOR GAMING CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEETS FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND 1997 AND
THE ANCHOR GAMING CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME 
FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, 1997 AND 1996, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      73,187,295
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,977,254
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,869,496
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            88,039,680
<PP&E>                                      94,791,189
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             245,133,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       33,590,398
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       137,584
<OTHER-SE>                                 244,995,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               245,133,543
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           231,931,781
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              125,700,450
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (3,434,315)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             225,811
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            109,439,835
<INCOME-TAX>                                41,039,938
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         68,399,897
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                68,399,897
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.20
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARGARET DAYTON and EVERETT JONES , Plaintiff s Below , Appellant s/Cross

- Appellees ,

v.
WILLIAM COLLISON , Defendant Below

, Appellee /Cross

- Appellant

. § § § § § § § § § § § § No

. 230, 2020

Court Below

– Superior Court of the State of Delaware

C.A. No. N17C

- 08

- 100

Submitted : March 24 , 2021 Decided: April 14 , 2021
Before VALIHURA , VAUGHN , and MONTGOMERY

- REEVES , Justices.
ORDER
On this 14 th day of April , 202 1 , the Court, having considered this matter on the briefs filed by the parties and the record on appeal, has determined that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its September 24, 2019 opinion and its June 22, 2020 memorandum opinion

. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is
AFFIRMED

. BY THE COURT :
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery

- Reeves Justice
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 153 (Thursday, August 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46000-46001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18060]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2506-144-MI]


Upper Peninsula Power Company; Notice of Availability of 
Environmental Assessment

July 30, 2008.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has 
reviewed Upper Peninsula Power Company's proposed shoreline management 
plan for the Escanaba Hydroelectric Project, located on the Middle 
Branch of the Escanaba River in Marquette County, Michigan, and has 
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA).
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available 
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's 
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the 
docket number (P-2506) excluding the last three digits in the docket 
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support at

[[Page 46001]]

<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f7b1b2a5b4b8999b9e9992a4828787988583b791928594d9909881"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d1979483929ebfbdb8bfb482a4a1a1bea3a591b7b4a3b2ffb6bea7">[email protected]</span></a> or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 
(202) 502-8659.
    Any comments on the EA should be filed by August 29, 2008, and 
should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A, Washington, DC 20426. 
Please reference the project name and project number (P-2506) on all 
comments. Comments may be filed electronically via Internet in lieu of 
paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web 
site under the ``eFiling'' link. For further information, contact Jon 
Cofrancesco at (202) 502-8951.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-18060 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00730-CV

Candelario MCGRAW,

Appellant

v.

Alfred S. LONGORIA and VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority,

Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CI-01034

John D. Gabriel Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 28, 2012

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The appellees were served with a 

copy of appellant’s motion; the appellees have not filed a response. Therefore, we grant the 

motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Costs of this appeal are taxed 

against the appellant. See id. R. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO:09-20005

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

ELMER KESCHICK, Jr.,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On June 21, 2010, this case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties,

Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. Defendant, along with counsel, appeared before me on June

29, 2010. In open court, I examined Defendant under oath, confirmed Defendant’s consent, and

then advised and questioned Defendant regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b)

of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Based upon Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND: (1) that Defendant

is competent to tender a plea; (2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently made; and (3)

that the offense(s) to which Defendant pleaded guilty is(are) supported by an independent basis

in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense(s). Therefore, I have ordered the

preparation of a presentence investigation report.
2

II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure, Defendant be adjudged guilty and sentence be imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation

within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d

590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). The parties

are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the

objections a party may have to this Report and Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of

Social Security, 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant

to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: June 30, 2010 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date,

electronically served on Roy Kranz, William Brisbois and William Antrobius, and served on District Judge

Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: June 30, 2010 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4066

To direct the Secretary of the Navy to transfer the U.S.S. Missouri (BB–

63) to the U.S.S. Missouri Allied Forces Memorial, San Francisco, California.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 12, 1996

Mr. BAKER of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on National Security

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Navy to transfer the U.S.S.

Missouri (BB–63) to the U.S.S. Missouri Allied Forces

Memorial, San Francisco, California.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF U.S.S. MISSOURI.

4 (a) AUTHORITY.—Notwithstanding subsections (a)

5 and (d) of section 7306 of title 10, United States Code,

6 but subject to subsections (b) and (c) of that section, the

7 Secretary of the Navy shall transfer, by January 31, 1997,

8 the U.S.S. Missouri (BB–63) to the nonprofit public bene9 fit corporation U.S.S. Missouri Allied Forces Memorial,

10 San Francisco, California.
2

•HR 4066 IH

1 (b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may

2 require such terms and conditions in connection with the

3 transfer authorized by this section as the Secretary consid4 ers appropriate.

Æ
#### David RAYFORD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 70282.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 28, 1997.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for movant/appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Daryle A. Edwards, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent/respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and 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)..
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Antonio BATTILE, Defendant/Appellant. Antonio BATTILE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 68667, 70544.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 11, 1997.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Kurt U. Schaefer, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of three counts of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020, RSMo 1986, and three counts of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. The court found defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to the following prison terms: life for Count I, robbery; one hundred years for Count II, armed criminal action, to run consecutively with count one; life for Count III, robbery, to run concurrently with counts one and two; one hundred years for Count IV, armed criminal action, to run concurrently with counts one through three; life for Count V, robbery, to run concurrently with counts one through four; one hundred years for Count VI, armed criminal action, to run concurrently with counts one through five. Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 10.33



                                  CONFIDENTIAL


November 30, 1999

To:        Tom Helms

From:      David Brunson

Re:        Divestiture of National Tobacco Company

As we have discussed, if we were to proceed with a divestiture of National
Tobacco Company ("NTC"), either in whole or a significant portion of its assets
(e.g., brands, inventory, etc.), and in recognition of my roles in the strategic
and tactical aspects of a prospective successful endeavor, it is agreed that
upon the closure of the divestiture that I would be paid a cash bonus equal to
one percent (1%) of the total transaction value. Total transaction value is
defined as the aggregate of i) cash paid for NTC, ii) debt and/or other
liabilities assumed by the prospective purchaser and iii) securities offered in
lieu of cash.


Agreed as of this 6th day of December, 1999.


/s/ Thomas F. Helms, Jr.
---------------------------------------
Thomas F. Helms, Jr.






NY2:\894009\01\J5TL01!.DOC\64980.0003
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4083

To extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act

through September 30, 1997.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 17, 1996

Mr. SCHAEFER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act through September 30, 1997.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT

4 AMENDMENTS.

5 The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amend6 ed—

7 (1) by amending section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246)

8 to read as follows:
2

•HR 4083 IH

1 ‘‘AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

2 ‘‘SEC. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated

3 for fiscal year 1997 such sums as may be necessary to

4 implement this part.’’;

5 (2) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251) by striking

6 ‘‘June 30, 1996’’ both places it appears and insert7 ing in lieu thereof ‘‘September 30, 1997’’;

8 (3) by adding at the end of section 256(h) (42

9 U.S.C. 6276(h)) ‘‘There are authorized to be appro10 priated for fiscal year 1997 such sums as may be

11 necessary to carry out this part.’’; and

12 (4) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285) by striking

13 ‘‘June 30, 1996’’ both places it appears and insert14 ing in lieu thereof ‘‘September 30, 1997’’.

Æ