alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|What's New · 
   What's Next · 
   Site Map · 
   A-Z Index ·
   Careers ·
   RSS ·
   All Videos ·
   Current FAQs ·
   Contact Us |  | Search  Advanced Search | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization - G.17 Current Release
  Release Dates
  Monthly Supplement
  Annual Revision
  Data Download
  About
  Announcements
  Technical Q&As
 Annual Revision (426 KB PDF)
(ASCII)  Table 5 [1]
 Item
Revised change(percent)
Difference betweenrevised and earlier changes(percentage points)2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016Total industry
2.4
1.0
1.8
2.0
.5
.0
-.6
-.3
.5
-.1Manufacturing[2]
1.8
.4
.2
.8
.9
-.1
-.7
-.6
-.4
-.3Manufacturing (NAICS)
2.1
.6
.4
1.0
.9
.0
-.6
-.5
-.3
-.3Durable manufacturing
2.4
1.9
.3
.6
1.3
.2
.0
-1.3
-1.3
-.6Nondurable manufacturing
1.7
-.7
.5
1.6
.5
-.1
-1.3
.5
.8
.0Other manufacturing (non-NAICS)
-3.4
-5.2
-5.5
-4.9
-.2
-3.5
-4.0
-3.2
-2.7
.3Mining
5.9
6.7
8.3
5.6
-3.4
.1
.2
-1.0
1.4
-.2Utilities
1.1
.0
.9
.7
.8
.0
-.3
-.2
-.1
.0Selected high-technology industries
14.4
15.4
.2
-.4
9.1
.7
15.8
-.8
-6.3
5.5Manufacturing[2] ex. selectedhigh-technology industries
1.3
-.1
.2
.9
.5
-.1
-1.4
-.5
-.1
-.4Stage-of-process groupsCrude
6.3
4.9
6.5
4.8
-2.8
.0
.5
-.4
1.5
-.3Primary and semifinished
1.4
.7
.1
.6
1.1
-.4
.0
-.4
-.4
.0Finished
1.6
-.2
.5
1.2
.9
.4
-1.8
-.8
-.3
-.3    Return to table   Return to table    Return to top
   Home Economic research and data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer  Linking Policy FOIA
 PDF Reader
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 113 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 113

            Recognizing the contributions of Patsy T. Mink.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 2, 2002

    Mr. George Miller of California (for himself, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. 
Abercrombie, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Owens, Mr. Payne, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Roemer, 
Mr. Scott, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Rivers, Mr. Hinojosa, Mrs. McCarthy of New 
York, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Kind, Mr. Ford, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Wu, Mr. Holt, 
Ms. Solis, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. 
 Honda, Ms. Lee, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. McIntyre, Ms. 
Kaptur, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Thompson 
 of Mississippi, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. 
Greenwood, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Shays, Mr. Peterson 
of Minnesota, and Mr. Evans) introduced the following joint resolution; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
            Recognizing the contributions of Patsy T. Mink.

Whereas Patsy Takemoto Mink was one of the country's leading voices for women's 
        rights, civil rights, and working families and was devoted to raising 
        living standards and providing economic and educational opportunity to 
        all Americans;
Whereas Patsy T. Mink was a passionate and persistent fighter against economic 
        and social injustices in Hawaii and across America;
Whereas Patsy T. Mink was one of the first women of color to win national office 
        in 1964 and opened doors of opportunity to millions of women and people 
        of color across America;
Whereas Pasty Mink won unprecedented legislative accomplishments on issues 
        affecting women's health, children, students, and working families; and
Whereas Patsy T. Mink's heroic, visionary, and tireless leadership to win the 
        landmark passage of title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 opened 
        doors to women's academic and athletic achievements and redefined what 
        is possible for a generation of women and for future generations our 
        Nation's daughters: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That title IX of the Education 
Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.; P.L. 92-318) may be cited 
as the ``Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act''.
                                 <all>
```
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 21
- 00497
- CR

Jesse Wyatt Vickers , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 18
- 2212
- K26 , THE HONORABLE DONNA GAYLE KING , JUDGE PRESIDIN G

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant Jesse Wyatt Vickers filed his notice of appeal on October 1, 202 1 . The reporter’s record was due on November 22, 2021

. On r eporter ’s request(s), the time for filing

was exten ded to February 22, 2022 . On February 22, 2022 , Ms. Cindy Kocher requested a
third extension of time . We order Ms. Kocher to file the reporter’s record in this cause no later
than March 22, 2022

. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(a) . Failure to file the record will result in
Ms

. K ocher being called before the Court to show cause why she should not be held in contempt
of this order.
It is ordered on Febru ary 25, 2022

.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith
Do Not Publish
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RICHARD N. MURO,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 8:23CR118

ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial [22]. 

Counsel requests additional time to complete plea negotiations. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial [22] is granted, as follows:

1. The jury trial now set for July 18, 2023, is continued to September 19, 2023.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests 

of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising 

as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s date 

and September 19, 2023, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation 

of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a 

continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective 

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(6), (7)(A) & (B)(iv).

DATED: June 27, 2023

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00118-BCB-MDN Doc # 23 Filed: 06/27/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 61
#### Craig Joseph CORTEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-55025. D.C. No. CV-01-01574-BTM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided Aug. 14, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Craig Cortez appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. A jury convicted Cortez of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. Cortez argues that the 135-month sentence imposed following his convictions violates *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because the jury did not determine drug quantity. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We affirm because any *Apprendi*error in this case was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” *United States v. Smith,*282 F.3d 758, 771-72 (9th Cir.2002). Count 2 of the indictment alleged that Cortez possessed 204.09 kilograms of mari*764juana, and he stipulated at trial that that was the amount of marijuana involved. As a result of the Count 2 conviction, which was predicated on this quantity of marijuana, Cortez was eligible for a 135-month sentence. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(vii) (making people convicted of possessing more than 100 kilograms of marijuana eligible to be sentenced to 40 years in prison). The district court correctly determined that Cortez’s § 2255 motion should be denied. *United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558, 569-70 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc); *Smith,*282 F.3d at 771-72.

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.
Conversion Agreement




 Exhibit 10.112 
  
 January 10, 2005 
  

CONFIDENTIAL 
  
 VIA FACSIMILE AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY 
  
 Board of Directors 
  
 i-STT Investments Pte Ltd 
 51 Cuppage Road 
 #10-11/17 
 Starhub Centre 
 Singapore 229469 
  
 Dear Jean,

  
 Re: A-1 Note Conversion 
  
 This letter memorializes the agreement between i-STT Investments Pte Ltd (“i-STT) and
Equinix, Inc. (“Equinix” or the “Company”) regarding the conversion of 95% of the Company’s A-1 Notes held by i-STT into shares of the Company’s Series A-1 Preferred Stock. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in
this letter agreement shall have the meanings ascribed to them in that certain Securities Purchase Agreement dated October 2, 2002, among the Company and i-STT (the “Purchase Agreement”). 
  
 Equinix hereby elects to effect an Optional Conversion of 95% of the A-1 Notes and PIK Notes
paid through November 1, 2004, plus 95% of the accrued and unpaid PIK Notes that would have been due had the A-1 Notes remained outstanding through February 14, 2005 (collectively, the “Converted Notes”). The shares issuable upon
conversion of Converted Notes are calculated as follows: 
  

				
	 95% of A-1 Notes, including 95% of PIK Notes paid through November 1, 2004 :
	  	$	36,543,032.69
	 95% of accrued and unpaid interest November 1, 2004 through February 14, 2005:
	  	$	1,492,173.84
	 Conversion price:
	  	$	9.1779
	 Series A-1 Preferred Stock issuable January 1, 2005:
	  	 	4,144,216

  
 By executing this letter agreement in
the space designated below, i-STT hereby agrees that, as of 12:01 a.m. Pacific Time on January 1, 2005 (the “Settlement Date”), the Converted Notes shall be converted into a total of 4,144,216 Series A-1 Preferred Stock. Equinix undertakes
to take any 









 
and all measures to effect the subsequent conversion of any or all of the 4,144,216 Series A-1 Preferred Stock into 4,144,216 Common Stock, as may be
required from time to time by i-STT, following i-STT’s exercise of such conversion right(s) pursuant to Equinix’s Certificate of Designation dated 30 December 2002. 
  
 If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (650) 513-7057. 
  
 Very truly yours, 
  

	
	 /s/ RENEE F. LANAM


	 Renee F. Lanam


  

			
	 cc:
	 	 General Counsel, STT Communications Ltd

	 	 	 Brandi Galvin

	 	 	 Brett Pletcher


  
 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:

  

			
	 i-STT Investments Pte. Ltd.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ JEAN MANDEVILLE


	 Title:
	 	 Jean Mandeville, Director

		
	 Date:
	 	 11 January 2005


  

 2
STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JAKE LEON MILLS

NO. 2023 KW 1332

FEBRUARY 16, 2024

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 

22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, 

No. 589075. 

BEFORE: WELCH, WOLFE, AND STROMBERG, JJ. 

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court' s

ruling granting the

defendant' s " Motion for Verdicts Other Than Conviction to be by

Concurrence of Ten Jurors" is reversed. In Ramos v. Louisiana, 

590 U. S. ----- 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 ( 2020) , the

Supreme Court did not distinguish between acquittals and

convictions when declaring nonunanimous verdicts

unconstitutional. State v. Rodgers, 2021- 190 ( La. App. 3d Cir. 

4/ 14/ 21), 318 So. 3d 315, 316, writ denied, 2021- 00675 ( La. 

9/ 27/ 21), 324 So. 3d 87. Therefore, we find that the defendant' s

argument that he is entitled to a nonunanimous jury verdict for

an acquittal is without merit. Accordingly, this matter is

remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent

with this ruling. 

JEW

EW

Stromberg, J., dissents. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

tPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
#### Ned L. PARKER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMPLOYEES OF CHARLESTON COUNTY; Employees of Charleston County Detention Center; Arresting Officers of North Charleston Police Department, Defendants-Appellees, and Charleston County Detention Center; Bonnie S. Koontz, Defendants.

No. 03-1254.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 20, 2003.

Ned L. Parker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Senn, Stephanie Pendarvis McDonald, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Ned L. Parker, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his civil complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 10, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on February 19, *2682003.* Because Parker failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 Parker mistakenly filed his notice of appeal with this court on February 19, 2003. This court forwarded the notice of appeal to the district court for filing. The notice of appeal was thus filed in the district court on Februaiy 21, 2003. In accordance with Fed. R.App. P. 4(d), Parker’s notice of appeal is deemed filed on February 19, 2003, the date the notice of appeal was received by this court and sent to the district court.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

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

JAMES W. MCCARTHY, 

 Plaintiff, 

-against- Civil Case No. 04-477-JD 

 

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., 

 

 Defendant. 

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

MOTION TO REOPEN 

James W. McCarthy files this Motion to Reopen in order to file the accompanying PostRemand Motion to Vacate an Arbitration Award, and for Further Remand, and supporting 

papers. 

The accompanying Post-Remand Motion to Vacate arises out of a remand for further 

arbitration proceedings, ordered in this case, as set forth in the Court’s Order, entered January 

28, 2005. Because the Post-Remand Motion to Vacate arises out of and directly relates to the 

proceedings in this case, McCarthy respectfully requests that the Court reopen this case to 

consider the Post-Remand Motion to Vacate. 

Dated: September 8, 2005 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Thomas J. Pappas for

 W. Wright Danenbarger, Esq. 

 Wiggin & Nourie, P.A. 

 670 North Commercial Street; Suite 305 

 P.O. Box 808 

 Manchester, NH 03105-0808 

 Tel. 603-669-2211 

 Fax. 603-623-8442 

 E-Mail: wdanenbarger@wiggin-nourie.com

Case 1:04-cv-00477-JD Document 19 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 2
2

Of Counsel: 

William A. Jacobson, Esq., pro hac vice

Shanna L. Pitts, Esq., pro hac vice

Law Offices of William A. Jacobson Inc. 

850 Turks Head Building 

Providence, RI 02903 

Tel. 401-490-7500 

Fax. 401-490-5680 

E-Mail: waj@wjacobson.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen on the following persons on this date and 

in the manner specified herein: 

Electronically Served: 

John R. Skelton, Esquire 

Bingham McCutchen LLP 

150 Federal Street 

Boston, MA 02110 

William A. Jacobson, Esquire 

Shanna L. Pitts, Esquire 

Law Offices of William A. Jacobson, Inc. 

850 Turks Head Building 

Providence, RI 02903 

/s/ Thomas J. Pappas for

W. Wright Danenbarger 

Case 1:04-cv-00477-JD Document 19 Filed 09/08/05 Page 2 of 2
**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**
   
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound
        Energy, Inc. (the "Companies") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
        ended
        June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
        date
        hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, Stephen P. Reynolds, Chairman, President and
        Chief
        Executive Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
        adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)  The
        Form
        10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Companies.
 
 
 
 Date:
                  August 2, 2005/s/Stephen
                  P. ReynoldsStephen
                  P. ReynoldsChairman,
                  President and
                Chief
                  Executive
                  Officer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 5

- 0 0 116

- C R

Style: William Cormac Quinn

v The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : June 23 , 201 5

Type of motion: Motion to supplement the record

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: State’s Exhibit 1 and “Defense Proferred [sic] Exhibit”

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 No further extensions of time will be granted

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

Appellant moves the Court to order the Harris County District Clerk to transport

two exhibits to this Court for inclusion in the appellate record. The exhibits were

filed with the Clerk of this Court on June 30, 2015. Accordingly, we dismiss the

motion as moot.

Judge's signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack



Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: July 14, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Patrick E. Dullen

v. Civil No. 05-cv-139-PB

Cheshire County, et al.

O R D E R

 Defendants move under the “three strikes” rule set out in 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) to require plaintiff to pay the full filing

fee (or be dismissed). The “three strikes” rule applies when a

prisoner has had three or more cases dismissed for frivolity or

failure to state a claim. Dullen’s two prior claims in this

court were dismissed for other reasons, one for failure to

provide discovery and one for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Neither provide a “strike”. The Northern District

of New York dismissed its case for a failure to abide by court

orders. Of the two Tennessee cases referenced, one was dismissed

for a failure to state a claim (one strike) and the other on the

basis of judgment as a matter of law - failure to state a claim

(strike two). 

In short, there is no basis at this time to invoke 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g) as plaintiff has only two strikes. The motion
2

(document no. 17) is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 25, 2005

cc: Patrick E. Dullen, pro se

 W. Kirk Abbott, Jr., Esq.

 John A. Curran, Esq.
## NO. 12

- 15

- 00042

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ELROY EDWARDS,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 217T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEX AS

MEMORANDUM OPINI ON

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by Appellant

and his counsel. No decision has been delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion

to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2 (a).

Opinion delivered March 25, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JU DGMENT

MARCH 25, 2015

NO. 12

- 15

- 00042

- CR

ELROY EDWARDS,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 217th District Court

of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2013

- 0280)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By p er curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 10, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 8

- 1 5 0 0 0 N o n - A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 7

- 0 0 1 5 0

- C R

- T

- E

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

B E N J A M I N S H A N E F O S T E R , a

. k

. a

. B e n

j a m i n S h a w n F o s t e r ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f A l a b a m a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( J u n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e B I R C H , H U L L a n d K R A V I T C H , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :
J o h n C a r l t o n T a y l o r , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r B e n j a m i n S h a n e F o s t e r i n t h i sd i r e c t c r i m i n a l a p p e a l , h a s m o v e d t o w i t h d r a w f r o m f u r t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e

a p p e l l a n t a n d f

i l e d a b r i e f p r e p a r e d p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. B e c a u s e i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e

e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f m e r i t , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s
G R A N T E D , a n d F o s t e r ’ s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2