alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jerron Adides HAYES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50387.

D.C. No. CR-01-00096-VAP-1.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 21, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jerron Adides Hayes appeals the 57-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Hayes argues that the district court erred by applying a two-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) for making “a threat of death” during the robbery. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

*994We review for clear error the factual findings made by the district court at sentencing. *United States v. Lavender,*224 F.3d 939, 941-42 (9th Cir.2000). Hayes does not dispute that the note he handed to the bank teller contained a threat of death. Nor could he. The note stated that “I have a gun! I will kill starting with you!” Hayes argues instead that he was not aware of the contents of the note because one of his accomplices wrote it. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err by finding Hayes knew that the note contained a “threat of death.” The extensive planning and Hayes’s own statement to the teller that he had a gun, in conjunction with his testimony at the evidentiary hearing that was not credible, raises a legitimate inference that Hayes knew the contents of the note. Moreover, Hayes’s reliance on *United States v. Zelaya,*114 F.3d 869, 871 (9th Cir.1997), is misplaced because the appellant in *Zelaya*did not know (and it was not foreseeable) that his accomplice would threaten the bank teller while he waited in the car. The district court did not err by applying the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TOMMY HALL,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-10933

v. DISTRICT JUDGE DAVID M. LAWSON

RAJA, JAYNA SHARPLEY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK A. RANDON

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL

SERVICES, INC., and PRISON

HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER ON THYAGARAJAN M.D. AND CMS’ MOTION TO

STRIKE AND TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF TESTIMONY (DKT. NO. 108)

This matter is before the Court on Vishnampet Thyagarajan M.D. and

Correctional Medical Services, Inc.’s motion to strike Timothy Spencer, D.O., from

Plaintiff’s witness list as an expert witness and to limit the scope of his testimony solely

to that pertaining to his actual involvement in the treatment of Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 108). 

The Court has reviewed this motion, Plaintiff’s response (Dkt. No. 117) and the reply

thereto (Dkt. 120). Being otherwise fully advised,

IT IS ORDERED that, notwithstanding the lack of an expert witness report, as

one of Plaintiff’s pre-incarceration treating physicians, Timothy Spencer, D.O., may

testify as to matters within his personal knowledge based upon his examination(s) of

Plaintiff and his review of any medical records in preparation for these examinations.

This may include an opinion as to the type of future care Plaintiff may have required as

long as that opinion was formed before, during or shortly after his treatment of Plaintiff. 

-1-

2:09-cv-10933-DML-MAR Doc # 146 Filed 02/09/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2286
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because Plaintiff has failed to provide any

documents indicating that he received treatment from Dr. Spencer after his release

from prison – discovery having closed on November 29, 20122 – Dr. Spencer’s

testimony shall not include any opinion or evaluation as to the type, quality, nature or

propriety of care provided to Plaintiff while he was incarcerated.

So Ordered.

 s/Mark A. Randon 

MARK A. RANDON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: February 9, 2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys and/or

parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on February 9, 2012.

s/Melody R. Miles 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

-2-

2:09-cv-10933-DML-MAR Doc # 146 Filed 02/09/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2287
No. 12,848.

#### State ex rel. George F. Schminke vs. Hon. T. C. W. Ellis, Judge.

The writ oí prohibition to restrain proceedings claimed to be in violation of the suspensive appeal wiil not issue when the judgment from which the appeal is taken is affirmed.

QN APPLICATION for Writs of *Certiorari*and Prohibition.

*James B. Rosser, Jr.,*for Relator.

*Dart & Neman*£tnd *Harold W. Newman*for Respondents.

Submitted on briefs May 21, 1898.

Opinion handed down May 30, 1898.

*346The opinion of the court was delivered by

Miller, J.

Relator applies for the writs of *certiorari*and prohibition to restrain proceedings he claims to be in violation of his suspensive appeal, refusing a respite to respondent’s firm, and appointing one of the firm liquidator.

In view of the fact that the litigation in which the suspensive appeal was taken has been ended by the judgments in the suits of iSchminke & Newman vs. Their Creditors, and Edgar Newman vs. 'George F. Schminke, decided to-day, it would serve no purpose to issue the writs even if the relator had any claim to the relief sought.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that our former order on this application be set aside, and it is now ordered that relator’s application be denied at his costs.
185 La. 860

#### STATE v. DANIELS.

No. 34014.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1936.

M. C. Rownd, of Springfield, for appellant

*57Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert S. Ellis, Jr., Dist. Atty., of Amite, Joseph M. Blache, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., of Hammond, for the State.

BRUNOT, Justice.

The accused was charged with having marajuana in his possession in violation of the provisions of Act No. 14 of the Second Extraordinary Session of the State Legislature of 1934. He was formally indicted for that offense. He was arraigned upon said charge, pleaded not guilty, the case was regularly assigned, tried, and a verdict of “guilty as charged” was returned by the jury.

In due course the accused was sentenced to serve a term of .imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, at hard labor, for not less than twenty months nor more than five years. From the verdict and sentence-he appealed.

There is no bill of exception in the record, no motion for a new trial, no assignment of error, therein, and no error patent on the face thereof.

Under the stated circumstances, the verdict and sentence, are affirmed. State v. Maniacol, 153 La. 1053, 97 So. 37; State v. Deleo, 156 La. 672, 674, 101 So. 17; State v. Cook, 158 La. 240, 103 So. 753; State v. Melson, 161 La. 423, 108 So. 794; Citv of Shreveport v. Jones, 172 La. 833, 135 So. 373.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the amended quarterly report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Grassano, CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Richard Grassano

Richard GrassanoCFODated: May 29, 2007

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc.and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, CASH FLOWS AND
SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             335
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,985
<ALLOWANCES>                                       277
<INVENTORY>                                      2,318
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,456
<PP&E>                                           3,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,023
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,083
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      9,295
<COMMON>                                        40,269
<OTHER-SE>                                    (49,478)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        86
<SALES>                                          9,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,254
<CGS>                                            7,682
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,682
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,831)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,831)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 18,757
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,926
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6189

TIMOTHY ENGRAM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ALLEN GANG; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:19-cv-01986-DKC)

Submitted: June 24, 2021 Decided: June 29, 2021

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Engram, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Engram seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) 

(explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from 

latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here,

the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both 

that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Engram has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated financial statements included in the Form 10-Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           294,513
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      92,865
<MORTGAGE>                                      10,977
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    3,339
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 432,253
<CASH>                                           7,908
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              14,552
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          30,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 848,617
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                380,529
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            145,700
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 69,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,109
<OTHER-SE>                                     204,953
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   848,617
<PREMIUMS>                                      71,062
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              6,520
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               1,311
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                      49,807
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      (613)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            22,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,323
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,409
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,914
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,914
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0<F1>
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0<F1>
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0<F1>
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0<F1>
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0<F1>
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0<F1>
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>This amount is presented on an annual basis.  See 12/31/96 Form 10-K for the
most recent report amounts.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
** UNITED      STATES**

**SECURITIES      AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington,      D.C. 20549**

**FORM        10-QSB/A**

|   | [X] | QUARTERLY                REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF                1934 |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**For      the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007**

|   | [                 ]   | TRANSITION                REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGE                ACT |
|--------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**000-52621**

**MONDO      ACQUISITION I, INC.**

|                  **Delaware **                                                                                  |                  **37-1532841**                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  (State                or other jurisdiction of incorporation or                organization)    |    (IRS                Employer Identification No.) |
|                                                                                                                      |                                                               |

**                                                                                               **

**61      Broadway, 32 nd      Floor**

**New      York, New York  10006**

**(212)      930-9700**

**N/A**

----

EXPLANATORY          NOTE

 

----

**SIGNATURES**

|                             | Mondo                Acquisition I, Inc. |                                                                                                                 |
|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             |                                     |                                                                                                                 |   |
| November                14, 2007 | By:                                      | /s/ Jeffrey                J. Fessler                                                                           |   |
|                             |                                     | Jeffrey                J. Fessler                                                                                    |   |
|                             |                                     | President                (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting                Officer) |   |
|                             |                                     |                                                                                                                 |   |
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 21


                          SUBSIDIARIES OF APOGEE, INC.


Advanced Behavioral Management
AGP Acquisition Corp.
Apogee of Northern Florida, Inc.
Apogee of Pennsylvania, Inc.
Apogee of Tennessee, Inc.
Apogee Health Services, Inc.
Apogee Services, Inc.
Associated Mental Health Services, Ltd.
Associates in Psychiatry, Inc.
DOC Systems, Inc.
Family Social and Psychotherapy Services, Inc.
InteCare Behavioral Services, L.L.C.
Integra IPA, Inc.
Martin E. Keller, Ed.D., Ltd.
Nevada Psychological Associates, Inc.
Naperville Psychiatric, Inc.
Psychiatric Associates, Inc.
Psychogeriatrics Consultants, Inc.
South Florida Substance Abuse, Inc.
Thunderbird Behavioral Health Institute, Inc.
Twin Ponds I, Inc.
Twin Ponds II, Inc.
Twin Ponds Management, Inc.
Winston Clinics, Inc.
Woodmont Psychiatric Associates, Inc.
231 So.2d 95

#### John L. ADRIAN and Lucille Adrian v. Joe Watt LOCKRIDGE, J. W. Lockridge, Jr., Billy Frank Lockridge and Jerry Gayle Lockridge.

7 Div. 863.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 22, 1970.

Burns, Carr & Shumaker, Centre, for appellants.

Irby A. Keener, Jr., Centre, for appellees.

MADDOX, Justice.

This appeal is from a decree of the Circuit Court of Cherokee County, In Equity, establishing a boundary line between the property of the appellants and the appellees.

Appellees file a motion here claiming that appellants’ brief fails to comply with Supreme Court Rules 1 and 9. We have carefully examined appellants’ brief and there is no substantial compliance with Rules 1 and 9, and the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.

The appellants’ thirteen assignments of error do not refer to the page or pages of the transcript of the record on which the ruling is recorded. We have held previously that where there is reference to certain record pages following an assignment of error and we fail to find any such ruling on the page or pages referred to, no question is presented for our determination. Henry v. Jackson, 279 Ala. 225, 184 So.2d 133 (1966). In neither of appellants’ thirteen assignments does the page reference correspond to the ruling or action of which appellants claim error.

Appellants’ brief substantially fails to comply with Rule 9 also. Appellants claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment of the court. Yet there is no “condensed recital of the evidence given by each witness in narrative form bearing on the joints in issue” contained in appellants’ brief. The failure of the appellants to comply with Rule 9 with regard to those assignments of error relat*223ing to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the decree, in fact or law, constitutes a waiver and abandonment of them. Mothershed v. Mothershed, 274 Ala. 528, 150 So.2d 372 (1963).

No reference is made to any of the assignments of error in appellants’ brief. We have held many times that this is insufficient to justify our consideration of the assignments of error. Piper Ice Cream Co. v. Midwest Dairy Products Corp., 279 Ala. 471, 187 So.2d 228 (1966), and cases there cited.

The decree of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON, MERRILL and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
#### Louis H. Meht, Respondent, v. Lena Meht, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed by default. Hirschberg, P.J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.