alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Lawrence BELK, Defendant/Appellant. Lawrence BELK, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 67594.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Dec. 31, 1996.

Gary E. Brotherton, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for Defendant/Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, David R. Truman, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Plaintiff/Respondent.

Before RHODES RUSSELL, P. J, and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence Belk appeals his sentence as a prior and persistent offender following the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of first degree burglary, kidnapping, rape, two counts of sodomy, first degree sexual abuse, first degree robbery, and seven counts of armed criminal action. In addition, Belk appeals from the trial court’s denying his Rule 29.15 motion.

*592No 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 basis for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
1

 As stated on the record, Defendant is not required to produce documentation as to

sales by Peiker Acustic GmbH & Co. KG, Defendant’s German parent company.

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PREMIER SALES & MARKETING, INC.,

No. 09-10610

Plaintiff,

District Judge Paul D. Borman

v. Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

PEIKER ACUSTIC, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

AMENDED ORDER

For the reasons and under the terms stated on the record on February 16, 2010,

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [Docket #21] is GRANTED.1

Defendant will produce the documents requested in Plaintiff’s discovery requests

within 30 days of the date of this Order. As to any material in which privilege is claimed,

Defendant shall produce a privilege log.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: February 16, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served on the attorneys

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on February 16, 2010.

S/Gina Wilson 

Judicial Assistant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

REGINALD UNDERWOOD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-10448

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On March 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a letter, which has been construed as a motion

for reconsideration, in which he objects to the adoption of the Magistrate Judge’s

“Report and Recommendation” because he claims he never received the report and

therefore was not given an opportunity to object. On March 23, 2011, the court directed

Plaintiff to file his prison legal mail log with the court or show cause why the log could

not be filed by placing a response in the prison mail by April 18, 2011. The court has

not received a response to that order. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [Dkt. # 61] is DENIED.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 5, 2011

2:09-cv-10448-RHC-MAR Doc # 63 Filed 05/05/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1041
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-10448.UNDERWOOD.DenyReconsideration.jmp.wpd

2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, May 5, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-10448-RHC-MAR Doc # 63 Filed 05/05/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1042
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51269 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE MANUEL HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Jose Coronado-Cavasos, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-1208-1-PRM

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Manuel Hernandez-Hernandez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hernandez-Hernandez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should haveNo. 03-51269 -2- been alleged in his indictment. Hernandez-Hernandez maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Hernandez-Hernandez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
  
 1.
    
    The Accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period 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; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: February 11, 2011
    /s/ Ricardo Figueiredo BomenyRicardo Figueiredo BomenyChief Executive Officer and Acting Chief  Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132226 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MELVINA SEYFRIED, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132226 

 COA: 270171 

Clinton CC: 05-009930-CK 

BRUCE SEYFRIED,

Defendant, 

and 

DONALD SEYFRIED and LISA SEYFRIED, 

 Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2006 

order 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. 

s1218 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

December 28, 2006 

 Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:06−cr−20465−NGE−MKM

Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

Anthony Clark, et al.,

Defendant(s),

NOTICE TO APPEAR

 The following defendant(s) are hereby notified to appear: Anthony Clark

 The defendant(s) shall appear before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds at the United

States District Court, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit,

Michigan, for the following proceeding(s):

• SENTENCING: March 20, 2013 at 02:00 PM

Certificate of Service

 I hereby certify that this Notice was electronically filed, and the parties and/or counsel of

record were served.

By: s/C. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

Dated: December 27, 2013

2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM Doc # 2528 Filed 12/27/13 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 18591
Case 2:09-cv-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 05/29/09 Page 1 of 16
Case 2:09-cv-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 05/29/09 Page 2 of 16
Case 2:09-cv-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 05/29/09 Page 3 of 16
Case 2:09-cv-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 05/29/09 Page 4 of 16
Case 2:09-cv-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 05/29/09 Page 5 of 16
Case 2:09-cv-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 05/29/09 Page 6 of 16
Case 2:09-cv-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 05/29/09 Page 7 of 16
Case 2:09-cv-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 05/29/09 Page 8 of 16
Case 2:09-cv-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 05/29/09 Page 9 of 16
Case 2:09-cv-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 05/29/09 Page 10 of 16
ase 2:09-cv-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 05/29/09 Page 11 of 1
ase 2:09-cv-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 05/29/09 Page 12 of 1
ase 2:09-cv-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 05/29/09 Page 13 of 
2078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 05/29/09 
 2:09-cv-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 05/29/09 Page 15 
v-12078-NGE-DAS ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 05/29/09 Pa
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6667

PAULUS IRVIN PERKINS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CARA PRUETT, Individually and as Business Manager; V. STOKES, Individually 

and as Assistant Business Manager; S. MOE-WILLIS, Individually and as Regional 

Ombudsman; G. CONWELL, Individually and as Fiscal Technician; D. JOHNSON 

AMA, Individually and as Grievance Respondent; TERRILYN ABERNATHY, 

Individually and as Grievance Respondent; A. JACKSON, Individually and as 

Grievance Coordinator; MARIE MITCHELL, Individually and as Counselor; V. 

DILLARD, Official Capacity; F. B. SHUPARD, Individually and as 

Sergeant/Corrections Officer; A. E. SPEEDE, Individually and as 

Lieutenant/Corrections Officer; R. T. JACKSON, Individually and as Counselor; 

M. TOMLIN, Individually and as Program Manager; S. L. JONES, Individually and 

as Sergeant/Corrections Officer; L. WITCHER, Individually and as Hearings 

Officer; J. ADAMS, Individually and as Grievance Respondent,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cv-00919-RDA-TCB)

Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6667 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Paulus Irvin Perkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6667 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Paulus Irvin Perkins appeals the district court’s orders directing him to amend his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, denying reconsideration, directing him to file a second 

amended complaint, and dismissing his second amended complaint for failure to state a 

claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Perkins v. Pruett, No. 

1:21-cv-00919-RDA-TCB (E.D. Va. Aug. 23 & Dec. 1, 2021, Feb. 9 & May 4, 2022). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6667 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,246
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,410
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,043
<INVENTORY>                                      1,206
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,943
<PP&E>                                         202,470
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,968
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,939
<BONDS>                                         86,230
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2,610)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,738
<SALES>                                        274,646
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               274,646
<CGS>                                          275,881
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  275,881
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   950
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,845
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (18,173)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (18,173)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                         (274)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (18,447)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (3.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.24)



</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 15, 2018

No. 04-18-00596-CV

BROWN SIMS, P.C. and Nelson D. Skyler,

Appellants

v.

L.W. MATTESON, INC., AGCS Marine Insurance Company, and New York Marine and 

General Insurance Company,

Appellees

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-18-55

Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On September 28, 2018, appellants filed a letter informing this court that the reporter’s 

record was incomplete. The same day, the court reporter filed an additional record, completing 

the reporter’s record. Thus, appellants’ brief became due on October 12, 2018.

 On October 2, 2018, appellants filed a motion for extension of time, requesting a forty

(40) day extension from October 3, 2018. Appellants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART. We 

extend appellants’ briefing deadline by twenty (20) days from the current deadline. Accordingly, 

appellants’ brief is due on or before November 1, 2018.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         968,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,941,000
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,941,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          569,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,116
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,369,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,941,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  582,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (246,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,342,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (336,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,006,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,342,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.43)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 of Denison International plc (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David L. Weir, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ David L. Weir
------------------------------

David L. Weir
Chief Executive Officer
March 28, 2003
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**434 KA 13-01647**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL E. HAUG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered January 30, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of vehicular assault in the first degree and driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, vehicular assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.04 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal ( see generally People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence ( see generally People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo , 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20023-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

 v.

D-1 BRIAN DENARD COLEMAN,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AS TO THE CONSPIRACY COUNT OF THE

SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on August 25, 2009, by United States Magistrate Judge

Charles E. Binder pursuant to the defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report on

August 26, 2009, recommending that this Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty. As of today’s

date, no party has filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The

failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith

v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure

to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review

the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings

and conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 96] is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s plea of guilty as to the conspiracy count of the

Case 1:09-cr-20023-TLL-PTM ECF No. 111, PageID.377 Filed 09/18/09 Page 1 of 2
-2-

second superseding indictment is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 94] is taken

UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: September 18, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on September 18, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

Case 1:09-cr-20023-TLL-PTM ECF No. 111, PageID.378 Filed 09/18/09 Page 2 of 2