alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have no precedential value

and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settle d principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule,

the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-60146

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DEANGELO WILLIAMS, a/k/a Dee,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Mississippi

(4:94cr81-S)

November 28, 1995

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Deangelo Williams, found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to distribute, possession with

intent to distribute, and aiding and abetting in the distribution and possession with intent to

distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, and 2, appeals his conviction, challenging

the admission of an audio tape and trans c ript thereof and the sufficiency of the evidence.

Finding no error in the admission of the audio tape or in the admission and use of a transcript

made by a government witness, and persuaded by the adequacy of the evidence, we affirm.2

Williams contends that the district court erred in admitti ng into evidence the tape

recording of a drug transac tion because portions of the recording were unintelligible. He

also maintains that the dis trict court erred in allowing the jury to use a transcript of the

recording. Williams did not object to the admission of the recording and withdrew his

objection to the jury’s use of the transcript. Therefore, any error must be reviewed for plain

error. U nited States v. Calverley

, 37 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1994), cert

. denied

, 115 S.Ct. 1266

(1995). The district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise, in admitting the tape

recording and allowing the jury to use the transcript as the tape was played. The court

carefully charged the jury that the tape was the evidence of its content and they were to

determine the accuracy of the transcript which was offered only as an aid to their listening

to the audio.

Williams also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.

The testimony of co-conspirator Kenny White, which was corroborated by the testimony of

the arresting officers and enforced by the tape recording, establishes that Williams was the

supplier of the cocaine and partici pated in the sale of the drugs to the undercover officer.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could

find that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams committed the

offenses. See United States v. Davis , 61 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 1995).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8




                      (Revision of Director Compensation)

RESOLVED, that effective July 1, 1997, non-employee directors of O'Sullivan
Industries Holdings, Inc. shall be paid quarterly in arrears, to the extent
applicable, the following retainers:

        (a) an annual retainer of $25,000; and
        (b) an annual retainer of $1,000 for service as a committee chairman;

and further

RESOLVED,  that effective July 1, 1997, no meeting fees will be payable to
Directors for the attendance of Board of Directors or Committee meetings;
provided, however, that Directors shall continue to be reimbursed for the
expenses of attending Board of Director and Committee meetings.



                                 Page 1 of 1
2:09-cv-13564-BAF-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 10/30/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 24
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 153 (Thursday, August 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[SGA/DFA-PY 08-04]

Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA); Technology-Based 
Learning (TBL) Initiative

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice: Amendment to SGA/DFA-PY 08-04.

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

SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration published a 
document in the Federal Register on June 20, 2008, announcing the 
availability of funds and solicitation for grant applications (SGA) 
under the TBL Initiative to be awarded through a competitive process. 
This notice is a third amendment to the SGA and it amends ``Part III. 
Eligibility Information,'' under the specific heading ``Eligible 
Applicants.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Stockton, Grant Officer, 
Division of Federal Assistance, at (202) 693-3335.

Supplementary Information Correction: In the Federal Register of June 
20, 2008, in FR Doc. E8-13967. On page 35158 under the second (2nd) 
paragraph, is amended to add a sub-paragraph to read: ``A Workforce 
Investment Board, in partnership with representatives from the 
education and training community and industry in high-growth/high 
demand fields.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: This notice is efective August 7, 2008.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of August, 2008.
James W. Stockton,
Grant Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-18172 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-11118

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JERRY WISER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(USDC No. 3:96-CR-089-D)

- - - - - - - - - -

December 31, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that court-appointed counsel’s motion for leave

to file an out-of-time brief is GRANTED. Counsel is reminded of

his duty to meet court-imposed deadlines.

Court-appointed counsel for Jerry Wiser has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and we have

independently reviewed counsel's brief, the points raised by Wiser

in response to that brief, and the record, and found no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further
No. 

-2-

responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
2:09-cv-13564-BAF-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 11/25/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 63
2:09-cv-13564-BAF-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 11/25/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 64
Opinion issued September 26, 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 2 4
- 00 698
- CV

——————————— IN RE YOUNG HWANG AND VIC K
- INTERNATIONAL

CORP ORATION , Relator s
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator s, Young Hwang and Vic K

- International Corp oration , filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s “oral ruling on May 9, 2024, partially granting [r]elators’ objections and motion to strike jury demand” of real party in interest, Minjeong Kim. 1 Relators further challenge the trial court’s denial

1 The underlying case is Young Hwang and Vic K

- International Corp

. v. Minjeong Kim , Cause No. 2 1

- DCV

- 284317 , in the 240 th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, the Honorable Surrendran K. Patel presiding.2

of their motion for reconsideration of the oral ruling regarding their objections and motion to strike jury demand, which relators state was memorialized by the trial court in an August 27, 2024 notation on the trial court’s docket sheet. Relators ’ mandamus petition requests that this Court “ issue a writ of mandamus directing [the trial court] to vacate [its] rulings of May 9, 2024 and August 27, 2024, [and to] require that the trial of all claims and causes of action in the underlying cause be tried to th e bench

. ” In connection with their petition for writ of mandamus, relators filed a “Motion for Emergency Stay of Underlying Case Pending Writ of Manda[mus].” In their motion, relators requested that the Court stay the underlying trial court proceedings, specificall y the September 24, 2024 trial setting. On September 18, 2024, the Court denied relators’ “Motion for Emergency Stay of Underlying Case Pending Writ of Manda[mus].” The Court den ies relators ’ petition for writ of mandamus. We dismiss any pending motions as moot

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Goodman and Guerra

.
Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 24 Filed 06/26/2009 Page 1 of 1
#### William A. SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dr. Curtis TARR, National Director of Selective Service, et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 194, Docket 72-1679.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 30, 1972.

Decided Jan. 9, 1973.

Marvin M. Rarpatkin, American Civil Liberties Union, New York City, (New York Civil Liberties Union by Jeremiah S. Gutman, New York City, Margrethe Powers, Albany, N. Y., American Civil Liberties Union Foundation by Melvin L. Wulf, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner-appellant.

James E. Cullum, Asst. U. S. Atty., Albany, N. Y. (James M. Sullivan, Jr., U. S. Atty., N. D. N. Y., of counsel), for respondents-appellees.

Before FRIENDLY, Chief Judge, and WATERMAN and HAYS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In view of the fact that appellant was released from civilian work on December 13, 1972, we are constrained to dismiss his appeal, without costs and to direct that the order of the district court be vacated, on the ground that the case has become moot.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-190-CV

IN RE THEODIS DODSON, JR.	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Relator asks this court to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for DNA testing and request for counsel to assist with his motion for DNA testing under chapter 64 of the code of criminal procedure.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01 (Vernon 2006). 

	Nothing in the record indicates that this motion has been presented to the trial court.  Presentment of the motion to the trial court is a prerequisite to mandamus relief.  See O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (“Mandamus will issue when there is a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act, a demand for performance, and a refusal.”); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding) (“Indeed, one can hardly be faulted for doing nothing if he were never aware of the need to act.”).  Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J. 

DELIVERED:  July 14, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 464 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 464

 To repeal the prohibitions relating to semiautomatic assault weapons 
             and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 1995

 Mr. Bartlett (for himself and Mr. Stockman) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the prohibitions relating to semiautomatic assault weapons 
             and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Bartlett/Stockman Assault Weapon Ban 
Repeal Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT 
              WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

    (a) Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking subsections (v) and (w) and by striking the appendix.
    (b) Section 921(a) of such title is amended by striking paragraphs 
(31) and (32).
    (c) Section 923(i) of such title is amended by striking the last 2 
sentences.
    (d) Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by striking 
``(r), (v), or (w)'' and inserting ``or (r)''.
    (e) Section 924(c)(1) of such title is amended by striking ``short-
barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon,'' and inserting ``or 
short-barreled shotgun''.
    (f) Title XI of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
of 1994 is hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (the Company)on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles R. Howell IV, Chief Executive 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, as
amended; and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                      |  |     |  |                              
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: March 26, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles R. Howell IV     
|                      |  |     |  | Charles R. Howell IV         
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23 - 0651

_________________ ALLISON SWEEM, individually, and as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF BRANDON E. ROBERTS, Plaintiffs , Appellee s, and Cross - Appellants, v. FLATHEAD COUNTY, a political division of the State of Montana, and DOES 1 - 10, Defendant s, Appellant s, and Cross - Appellees . O R D E R

_________________ On December 19 , 2023 , the mediator for this appeal filed a report stating that the case has settled. Nothing further has been filed. Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 7(7)(b), IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.

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

January 24 2024

01/24/2024
Case Number: DA 23-0651
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,382,378
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,313,615
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,470,585
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      34,130,462
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,297,040
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,835,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,297,040
<SALES>                                      1,187,086
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,896,120
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,395,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               484,534
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,690,315
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             659,115
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,500,668
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,500,668
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,500,668
<EPS-BASIC>                                       4.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.93


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                      21,256,356
<SECURITIES>                                49,598,687
<RECEIVABLES>                                  893,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            72,979,081
<PP&E>                                       1,981,013
<DEPRECIATION>                                 763,271
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              79,085,656
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       35,591,782
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,530
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,036,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                79,085,656
<SALES>                                      3,308,080
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,717,681
<CGS>                                        1,626,661
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,947,273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          (44,196,516)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107,760
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             42,859,164
<INCOME-TAX>                                16,900,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         25,959,164
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                25,959,164
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     7.96
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Shaun R. Touchtone, 

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-13500 

v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation. Being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and

the pleadings, including the Report and Recommendation and any objections if any, the

Court hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

It is ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, Defendant's motion

for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the findings of the Commissioner are

AFFIRMED, and the case is hereby DISMISSED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: March 24, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on March 24, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-13500-NGE-MJH Doc # 17 Filed 03/24/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 496
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20403-02

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

BERNARD IVAN DAVIS,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

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 and his counsel appeared before me on July 1, 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 to which Defendant pleaded guilty is supported by an independent basis in

fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense. 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’s plea be accepted, Defendant be adjudged guilty and the Court impose

sentence.

III. REVIEW

Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]ithin 14 days

after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file

specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may

respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.” FED. R.

CIV. P. 72(b)(2). See also 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); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991);

United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 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. Willis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 931 F.2d

390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373

(6th Cir. 1987). 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: July 1, 2010 United States Magistrate Judge
3

CERTIFICATION

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

electronically served on Shane Waller and Barb Klimaszewski, and served on U.S. District

Judge Thomas Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: July 1, 2010 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder