alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1117 

KA 11-00253 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CARL F. NELSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ROBERT J. SHOEMAKER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County

(Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered November 23, 2010. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury

verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]),

defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to charge the

jury with respect to the voluntariness of defendant’s statements to

the police. We reject that contention. “A court is required to

provide a charge regarding the voluntariness of defendant’s statements

only if defendant raises that issue, and ‘evidence sufficient to raise

a factual dispute [is] adduced either by direct or crossexamination’ ” (People v Nathan, 108 AD3d 1077, 1078, lv denied 23

NY3d 966, quoting People v Cefaro, 23 NY2d 283, 288-289). Here,

defendant did not submit any evidence presenting a genuine issue of

fact concerning the voluntariness of his statements, and we therefore

conclude that the court was not required to instruct the jury on that

issue (see People v Canfield, 111 AD3d 1396, 1396, lv denied 22 NY3d

1087; Nathan, 108 AD3d at 1078).

Entered: November 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                                                           
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             173
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        163
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,388
<PP&E>                                          13,942
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,902
<BONDS>                                          6,835
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        133
<COMMON>                                         4,230
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,451
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,720
<SALES>                                          4,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,682
<CGS>                                            4,559
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (59)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    294
<INCOME-TAX>                                        80
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                214
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       214
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.65
        
                                                                           


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00362-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

3. RONALD BENJAMIN,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon a review of the file. To ensure that all

pretrial phases of the case are complete before the commencement of the jury trial, it is

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by Friday, May 30, 2014, and

responses to these motions shall be filed by Tuesday, June 10, 2014. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that a five-day jury trial is set to commence on Monday,

June 16, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. in courtroom A-1002. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on all pending motions, if any, and final trial

preparation conference shall not be set at this time. Counsel shall contact Chambers

should a hearing become necessary. 

Case 1:11-cr-00362-WYD Document 355 Filed 05/05/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
-2-

Dated: May 5, 2014

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

Wiley Y. Daniel

Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00362-WYD Document 355 Filed 05/05/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary 

          - [Transmittal Nos. 08-87] 

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-87 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,  Department of Defense.

      ( print page 58139)          ( print page 58140)          ( print page 58141)          ( print page 58142)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

 [FR Doc. E8-23332 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven Swan

v. Civil No. 06-fp-458

Paul Barbadoro, et al.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

I hereby recuse myself from presiding over this case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

December 15, 2006

cc: Steven A. Swan, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00458-GZS Document 5 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO TORRES SALINAS,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 70211

Agency No. A089

- 745

- 746

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 4, 2020 * *

Pasadena, California

Before: GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, ** * District Judge.

Sergio Torres Salinas (“Petitioner”) is a native and citize n of Mexico. He

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

dismissing his appeal from the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the

District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

NOV 2 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 14

- 70211

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and related relief under the

Co nvention Against Torture (“CAT”) and for cancellation of removal

. Because

the petition for review was filed more than thirty (30) days after the BIA’s

decision, we d ismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Under Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a filing is not

timely unless the papers are filed with the clerk within the time allowed , which is

thirty days after the date of the final order according to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) . We

strictly construe this rule. Se e, e.g.

, Magtanon g v. Gonzales , 494 F.3d 1190, 1191

(9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). T he court’s electronic filing system reflects that the

attempts made by Petitioner’s counsel to electronically file this petition for review

on January 18, 2014, and January 21, 2014, were u nsuccessful as counsel failed to

complete the electronic filing process. As noted by the Sheviakov court

, “a petition

for review is deemed filed not when mailed, but only when the clerk ‘receives’ it.”

Sheviakov v. I

. N

. S

. , 237 F.3d 1144 , 1147 (9th Cir. 2001) . Here, we did not receive

the petition until January 22, 2014, and thus, we do not have jurisdiction over the

petition for review.

PETITION D ISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

. 1

1 After this cas e was submitted, Petitioner filed a motion to refer the case to

mediation or stay proceedings. (ECF No. 81.) The motion does not make a

sufficient showing to stay proceedings. Therefore, the request for a stay is

DENIED and the request to refer the case to mediation is deemed MOO T

.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3323

___________________________

John Caldwell

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, formerly 

Deputy Director of Health Services

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

Corizon, Inc.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Deborah York, H.S.A., Varner Unit; Robert Floss, Doctor, ADC; Ojiugo Iko,

Doctor, Corizon Inc.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff

____________

 Submitted: August 30, 2016

Filed: September 2, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

____________
PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate John Caldwell appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Viewing the summary judgment

record in a light most favorable to Mr. Caldwell, and drawing all reasonable

inferences from it in his favor, see Murchison v. Rogers, 779 F.3d 882, 886-87 (8th

Cir. 2015), we find no basis for overturning the district court’s determination that

there were no jury issues on his Eighth Amendment claims, see Allard v. Baldwin,

779 F.3d 768, 771-72 (8th Cir.) (discussing requirements to prevail on Eighth

Amendment claim), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 211 (2015). The judgment of the district

court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

-2-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6941
FELIX ORIAKHI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOUGLAS BIALESE, Drug Enforcement Agent; ANTHONY CANNAVALE, DEA; ROBERT HARDING, AUSA; U. S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-8601
FELIX ORIAKHI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-93-3574-K, CA-95-1396-K, CR-90-72-K)2 Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Felix Oriakhi, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Felix Oriakhi appeals the district court's denials of his motions for return of property. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. As to Appeal No. 95-6941, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Oriakhi v. Bialese , No. CA-93-3574-K (D. Md. June 6, 1995). As to Appeal No. 95-8601, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Oriakhi v. United States , Nos. CR90-72-K; CA-95-1396-K (D. Md. Dec. 22, 1995). While we find that Oriakhi's claim for return of property is more properly construed as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e), we affirm the district court's denial of relief on this claim on the grounds of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. As for Oriakhi's claims regarding double jeopardy and sentencing, we affirm the district court's determination that such claims are more properly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 21, 2014. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 21, 2014 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A14I0239. 2010-1 SFG VENTURE LLC et al. v. LEE BANK & TRUST COMPANY.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2013CV226733
#### The State, ex rel. Southard, Dir. of Health, *v.*City of Columbus et al.

(No. 24296

— Decided May 9, 1934.)

*Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, and *Mr. William S. Evatt,*for relator.

■ *Mr. John L. Davies,*city attorney, *Mr. E. W. McCormick*and *Mr. Don W. Wiper,*for respondents.

*296This cause came on to be heard upon the demurrer ■ to respondents’ amended joint and several answer, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged that said demurrer be, and the same hereby is, sustained upon authority of *State Board of Health*v. *City of Greenville,*86 Ohio St., 1, and *City of Bucyrus*v. *State Dept. of Health,*120 Ohio St., 426.

And said respondents having this *day*advised the court that they do not desire to plead further, it is ordered and adjudged that the writ of mandamus prayed for be, and the same hereby is, allowed, and the said respondents, the Mayor of the city of Columbus and the City Council of the city of Columbus, are commanded forthwith to proceed to install works and means satisfactory to the Director of Health for disposing of the sewage of the city in a manner to correct and prevent the pollution of the Scioto river caused by such sewage, and to do all other things necessary and proper effectually to carry out and comply with the order of the relator served on respondents on September 12, 1927.

*Writ allowed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis, Zimmerman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
<TABLE>   
<CAPTION>
                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                MARCH 31,
                                                          ---------------------
                                                             1997       1996
                                                          ---------- ----------
<S>                                                       <C>        <C>
Diluted net income per share:
  Net income............................................. $   63,000 $  997,000
  Average number of shares outstanding...................  7,570,000  2,954,429
  Net effect of dilutive stock options-based on treasury
   stock method using average market price...............    345,294          0
                                                          ---------- ----------
    Total average shares.................................  7,915,294  2,954,429
    Diluted net income per share......................... $     0.01 $     0.34
                                                          ========== ==========
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 

36 

Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 18 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
-1- 

006157-11 464909 V1

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, 

COLORADO 

Court Address: Denver City and County Building 

 1437 Bannock St. 

 Denver, Colorado 80202 

Plaintiff: United Western Bank 

v. 

Defendant(s): Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. 

▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲

Attorneys for Plaintiff United Western Bank 

Kip B. Shuman (#23593) 

Rusty E. Glenn (#39183) 

THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM 

885 Arapahoe Avenue 

Boulder, Colorado 80302 

Telephone: (303) 861-3003 

Facsimile: (303) 484-4886 

Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice) 

Tyler Weaver (pro hac vice) 

Karl P. Barth (pro hac vice) 

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 

1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 

Seattle, Washington 98101 

Telephone: (206) 623-7292 

Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 

Case No.: 2010CV3325 

Division: 2 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT 

INSURANCE COPROATION AS RECEIVER FOR UNITED WESTERN BANK TO 

SUBSTITUTE AS PLAINITFF 

APPROVED

 

 

Movant shall serve copies of this ORDER on 

any pro se parties, pursuant to CRCP 5, and 

file a certificate of service with the Court 

within 10 days.

Dated: Aug 08 2011 12:01PM

William W. Hood III

District Court Judge

DATE OF ORDER INDICATED ON ATTACHMENT

Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 18 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
-2- 

006157-11 464909 V1

The Court, having considered the Motion of the Federal Deposition Insurance 

Corporation as Receiver for United Western Bank to Substitute as Plaintiff is hereby 

GRANTED. 

Dated: August ___, 2011. BY THE COURT 

 

_____________________________ 

 William W. Hood III 

 Denver District Court Judge 

 

Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 18 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
#### Antonio Pierre, an Infant, by His Grandmother and Legal Guardian, Concetta Pierre, et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Pincus Neiman et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 61]

In an action to recover damages *390for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated March 16, 2001, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Pincus Neiman and Hager Management which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The infant plaintiff alleged that he cut his wrist on a piece of glass after he tripped and fell over a water valve box (hereinafter the box) located in a grassy median next to a public sidewalk. The box was owned and maintained by the defendant Jamaica Water Supply Company, which was previously granted summary judgment by this Court *(see Pierre v City of New York,*273 AD2d 368). The area around the box had eroded, causing the box to protrude several inches above ground level.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants Pincus Neiman, the owner of the premises abutting the accident location, and Hager Management, the managing agent of the property (hereinafter jointly referred to as the respondents), established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The respondents had no duty to maintain the area surrounding the box. They did not own the land upon which the box was located, and there was no evidence that the area was constructed in a special manner for their use *(see Delano v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.,*231 AD2d 671; *Kobet v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.,*176 AD2d 785). Moreover, there was no evidence that the respondents created the defect by negligently maintaining the area around the box *(see Delano v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.,*supra; *Kobet v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., supra).*In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding any basis for imposing liability on the respondents. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Goldstein, J.P., McGinity, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
|What's New · 

What's Next · 

Site Map · 
A-Z Index · 
Careers · 

RSS · 
All Videos · 

Current FAQs |  | 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
   Consumer Credit - G.19 Current Release

Release Dates
Revisions
Historical Data

Charts
About

Announcements
Technical Q&As
 Accessible Data  Student Loans  Quarter
Total Student Loans (revised)
Total Student Loans (historical)2006:Q1
477,599
509,2562006:Q2
483,568
517,0102006:Q3
506,650
543,2982006:Q4
517,150
556,9382007:Q1
540,354
583,9222007:Q2
544,449
589,7712007:Q3
572,167
621,1772007:Q4
583,838
636,9572008:Q1
613,171
670,9322008:Q2
620,214
680,2952008:Q3
651,469
712,6722008:Q4
665,777
730,6522009:Q1
696,290
765,4572009:Q2
700,655
770,9142009:Q3
734,418
808,2382009:Q4
760,040
831,6162010:Q1
788,429
860,6642010:Q2
799,278
868,5832010:Q3
834,439
901,8422010:Q4
843,901
912,4262011:Q1
890,734
958,2442011:Q2
898,911
965,5642011:Q3
936,853
1,003,6952011:Q4
943,046
1,012,2812012:Q1
990,854
1,062,1772012:Q2
1,007,678
1,082,8672012:Q3
1,037,858
1,114,7922012:Q4
1,050,731
1,131,2992013:Q1
1,088,338
1,168,2282013:Q2
1,095,887
1,177,2612013:Q3
1,130,379
1,210,9982013:Q4
1,141,459
1,223,0262014:Q1
1,177,837
1,261,6742014:Q2
1,187,018
1,274,5602014:Q3
1,221,134
1,311,4842014:Q4
1,230,070
1,325,3092015:Q1
1,265,107
1,360,4302015:Q2
1,266,073
 Return to figure






Home Economic Research & Data


Accessibility Contact us Disclaimer  Linking Policy FOIA
 PDF Reader