alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Tyrelle T., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 312]

Inn a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Porzio, J.), dated October 4, 2004, which, inter alia, placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for placement in a limited secure facility for a period of 12 months less the period of time spent in detention pending disposition.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant’s sole argument is that he was denied a “full and fair” dispositional hearing because a diagnostic assessment, pursuant to Family Court Act § 351.1, was not completed. Thus, he contends that the matter should be remitted for a “forensic” evaluation, a new dispositional hearing, and a determination as to whether “a more appropriate disposition” should be placement in a vocational school and group counseling. However, that contention has been rendered academic by the expiration of the period of placement *(see Matter of Paul C.,*5 AD3d 592, 593 [2004]). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6302

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONALD JOURDAN EVANS, a/k/a Freak, a/k/a

Man-Man,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-92-163, CA-92-163-2)

Submitted: March 12, 2003 Decided: May 15, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Jourdan Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Jourdan Evans appeals the district court’s order

construing his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in which he

sought to challenge the denial of a motion for reduction of

sentence, as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and

dismissing the motion without prejudice. We find no error in the

construction of Evans’s motion as a successive § 2255 motion.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a

district court dismisses a § 2255 motion on procedural grounds, a

certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner

can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert.

denied, 112 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Evans has not made the requisite showing.

See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cr-229-01-SM

Tony Rosas

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 26) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the December 2008 trial period. Defendant shall file a

Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than August 1, 2008. On the filing of such

waiver, his continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account

the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: November 24, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Case 1:07-cr-00229-SM Document 27 Filed 07/24/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Jury Selection: December 2, 2008 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

July 24, 2008 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Michael Zaino, Esq.

 Mark Sisti, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00229-SM Document 27 Filed 07/24/08 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from (1) Statements of Balance Sheets, (2) Statements of
Operations and (3) Statements of Cash Flows, 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-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,435
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                       304
<INVENTORY>                                      5,184
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,900
<PP&E>                                          20,958
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,989
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            94
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,493
<SALES>                                         28,128
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,128
<CGS>                                           13,640
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (105)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,033)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,033)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,033)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21  MATERIAL SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

|Name                                      |  | Country             |  | % Ownership
|----------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | -----------
|Advanced Enterprise Solutions, Inc.       |  | U.S.A. (Delaware)   |  | 100%       
|Knowledge Revolution                      |  | U.S.A. (California) |  | 100%       
|MSC International Company                 |  | U.S.A. (California) |  | 100%       
|Tyra Technologies, Inc.                   |  | U.S.A. (California) |  | 100%       
|MSC.Flyer, LLC                            |  | U.S.A. (Delaware)   |  | 100%       
|MSC.Software Australia Pty Ltd.           |  | Australia           |  | 51%        
|MSC.Software Asia Pty Ltd.                |  | Australia           |  | 100%       
|MSC Brasil Software e Engenharia Ltda.    |  | Brazil              |  | 100%       
|MSC.Software Ltd.                         |  | Canada              |  | 100%       
|MSC.Software s.r.o.                       |  | Czech Republic      |  | 100%       
|Mechanical Dynamics SARL                  |  | France              |  | 100%       
|MSC.Software SARL                         |  | France              |  | 100%       
|MSC.Software GmbH                         |  | Germany             |  | 100%       
|MSC.Software China (Hong Kong) Limited    |  | Hong Kong           |  | 100%       
|MSC.Software S.r.l.                       |  | Italy               |  | 100%       
|Estech Corporation                        |  | Japan               |  | 100%       
|Mechanical Dynamics Japan K.K.            |  | Japan               |  | 34%        
|MSC.Software Ltd.                         |  | Japan               |  | 100%       
|MSC.Software Korea Corporation            |  | Korea               |  | 51%        
|Compumod (M) Sdn Bhd                      |  | Malaysia            |  | 100%       
|MSC.Software Benelux B.V.                 |  | Netherlands         |  | 100%       
|MSC.Software AS                           |  | Norway              |  | 100%       
|MSC.Software Sp. zo.o                     |  | Poland              |  | 100%       
|MSC.Software (S) Pte. Ltd.                |  | Singapore           |  | 100%       
|MSC.Software Simulating Reality, S.A.     |  | Spain               |  | 100%       
|Mechanical Dynamics Sweden AB             |  | Sweden              |  | 100%       
|Mechanical Dynamics International Limited |  | United Kingdom      |  | 100%       
|Banner Solutions Limited                  |  | United Kingdom      |  | 100%       
|MSC.Software Limited                      |  | United Kingdom      |  | 100%       

---

QuickLinks
#### HALL v. HALL et al.*

*No.*5441.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 1, 1937.

Rebearing Granted June 30, 1937.

Writ of Certiorari and Review Granted Feb. 7, 1938.

Sholars & Gunby and G. Allen Kimball, all of Monroe, for appellants. , '

McHenry, Lamkin & Lamkin, of Monroe, for appellee.

Hamiter, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Edward Parks v. Plarvey Flail et al., 179 So. 868, this day decided by us, the judgment appealed from, in so far as the defendants M. L. Gans and Phoenix Indemnity Company are concerned, is set aside and reversed, and plaintiff’s suit is dismissed at his cost in both courts.

DREW, Judge

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case for the reason that I am of the opinion that the omnibus clause in the insurance policy covers the case and makes the insurance company liable thereunder. In my opinion the driver of the *878car causing the damage was lawfully in possession of same at the time of the accident.

On Rehearing.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

For the written reasons this day assigned in Edward Parks v. Harvey Hall et al., on rehearing, La.App., 179 So. 868, the judgment heretofore rendered herein is reinstated and made final.

DREW, J., dissents.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50449

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN MANUEL CASTOR-LOZANO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CR-2153-ALL-DB

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Manuel

Castor-Lozano concedes that the arguments raised are foreclosed

by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve them for further

review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance in lieu

of filing an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01747-RPM

MAISHA POLLARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENVER HEALTH AND HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16, it is

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be held on January 25, 2012, at 10:30 a.m.

in the Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout

Street, Denver, Colorado. Counsel are directed to comply with the Instructions for Preparation of

Scheduling Order which may be found at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.aspx

(Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch Procedures) and use the format provided with those instructions

(Rev. 1/08). The proposed order (original only) on paper, shall be submitted directly to chambers

by 4:00 p.m. on January 19, 2012.

 The conference is conducted with lead counsel present in person. No parties or

representatives of parties will be permitted to attend.

Dated: December 7th, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01747-RPM Document 10 Filed 12/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
** **

**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, W. BradleyBlair, II, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Golf Trust of America, Inc;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

(a)           All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| August 21, 2006 | /s/ W. BRADLEY BLAIR, II  |   |
|-----------------|---------------------------|--------|
|            | W. Bradley Blair, II      |   |
|            | *Chief Executive Officer* |   |

 

 

----
H. R. 2199

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

An Act

To amend the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement

Act of 1997 to permit any Federal law enforcement agency to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia to assist the Department in carrying out crime prevention and law enforcement

activities in the District of Columbia if deemed appropriate by the Chief of

the Department and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,

and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘District of Columbia Police

Coordination Amendment Act of 2001’’.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING ADDITIONAL FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

AGENCIES TO ENTER INTO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

WITH METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Section 11712(d) of the National Capital Revitalization and

Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (D.C. Code, sec. 5–

133.17(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(33) Any other law enforcement agency of the Federal

government that the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department and the United States Attorney for the District of

Columbia deem appropriate to enter into an agreement pursuant to this section.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.2


                 CONSENT OF SYSTEMES GEOSTAT INTERNATIONAL INC.


Montreal, March 30, 2005


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION                ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION
450 Fifth St. N. W.                               Suite 1903, Box 55
Washington, DC 20259                              20 Queen Street West
USA                                               Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S8


SUBJECT:        Our reports dated February 23, 2004
                MINERAL RESERVES AND RESOURCES




We hereby consent to the inclusion of references to our reports dated February
23, 2004, regarding the mineral reserves and resources of the Joe Mann Mine,
which appear under Item 4 in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Campbell
Resources Inc. (the "Corporation") for the year ended December 31st, 2004.

SYSTEMES GEOSTAT INTERNATIONAL INC.





(s) Robert de l'Etoile
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert de l'Etoile, eng.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2





                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

To Inland Resources, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K of our reserve
report and all schedules, exhibits, and attachments thereto, to any reference
made to us in Form 10-K as a result of such incorporation and to the
incorporation by reference thereof into Inland's registration statements on Form
S-8 File No. 333-43432, Form S-8 No. 333-43430, Form S-8 No. 333-27449, Form S-8
No. 333-43434 and on Form S-3 No. 33-84766.


                                                 RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.


Denver, Colorado
March 26, 2003
#### Ronald DEL RAINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike ADAMS, Warden, et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-55054.

D.C. No. CV-00-08142-GAF.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 20, 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**

Federal prisoner Ronald Del Raine appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging a decision by the United States Parole Commission (“Commission”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm.

Del Raine contends that the Commission erred in computing his mandatory early release hearing date pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4206(d).

Del Raine may not challenge the execution of his sentence in the instant 28 U. S.C. § 2241 petition because his claims are barred as successive. *See*§ 2244(a) (stating that a federal court is not required to entertain a habeas petition “if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus”). The district court properly dismissed Del Raine’s petition as successive because he raises the same claims raised in a prior habeas petition, and denied on the merits by the Middle District of Pennsylvania. *Id; cf. Barapind v. Reno,*225 F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir.2000) (deciding that the gatekeeping provisions of § 2244 did not apply to an INS detainee who filed a § 2241 petition since detention challenged was not pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United *763States); *see also Hill v. Alaska,*297 F.3d 895, 898-99 (9th Cir.2002) (deciding, in a case of first impression, that a habeas petition was not second or successive under § 2244(b) because the petition was challenging the mandatory release date for the first time, and those claims could not have been included in earlier petitions).

AFFIRMED.1

**

 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.

1

. Del Raine’s February 12, 2003, motion to file his reply brief late is granted. The clerk shall file the reply brief received on February 4, 2003.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 4, 2020.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1361

Lower Tribunal No. 02-21084

________________

Shawnton D. Johnson,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the 

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge.

Shawnton D. Johnson, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991) (The evidence 

claimed to be newly discovered "must have been unknown by the trial court, by the 
2

party, or by counsel at the time of trial and it must appear that defendant or his 

counsel could not have [ascertained those facts] by the use of diligence" such as 

taking the witness' testimony.).