alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

2The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1700

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Dexter Neal, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 12, 2000

Filed: September 25, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE,1 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dexter Neal appeals his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) for distribution

of cocaine base and cocaine. Defendant argues the District Court2 erred by denying

defendant's motion for a directed verdict based upon insufficiency of the evidence, and

claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
-2-

We conclude the evidence presented is adequate to sustain the jury's verdict. 

See United States v. Hawkey, 148 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 1998) (setting out standard

of review). Furthermore, we conclude that the defendant's ineffective assistance claim

is not timely; we reach this conclusion without prejudice to defendant's right to bring

a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Iversen, 90 F.3d

1340, 1342 (8th Cir. 1996) (dismissing ineffective assistance claim without prejudice

to defendant's right to bring motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255).

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,940
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,208
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,610
<INVENTORY>                                     73,741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               150,240
<PP&E>                                         395,494
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,302
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 856,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,076
<BONDS>                                        410,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     243,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   856,907
<SALES>                                      1,096,328
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,096,328
<CGS>                                        1,058,213
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,058,213
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,504
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,949
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,878)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        47
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,925)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (5,329)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,254)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                                                      |  |                                 |  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------- | -
|Name and State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation                 |  | RegistrantsPercentageOwnership |  
|Foothill Independent Bank, a California corporation                   |  | 100                             | %
|Foothill BPC, Inc., a California corporation                          |  | 100                             | %
|Foothill Independent Statutory Trust I, a Connecticut statutory trust |  | 100                             | %



In accordance with the
instructions set forth in Paragraph (b) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K, there have been omitted those subsidiaries that, if considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary as of December 31, 2004.
#### HORSLEY v. CLEIN.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
#### Maria Colon et al., as Administrators of the Estate of Efren G. Mondragon, Also Known as Efren Gomez, Deceased, Appellants, v Aldus III Associates et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 425]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered April 20, 2001, which, in an action arising out of plaintiffs’ decedent’s fall from a scaffold while doing pointing work on a building owned and managed by defendants, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed as against defendant Triboro Maintenance upon a finding that it was a division of defendant Property Resources Corp. and not a separate entity *(see, Levensen v Berkey Professional Processing,*122 AD2d 867); as against defendant Property Resources Corp. upon a finding that it was the decedent’s employer (Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, 29 [6]; *see, Duche v Star Recycling,*261 AD2d 503); and as against defendant Aldus III Associates, the building’s owner and a limited partnership, and defendant NHP/PRC Management Company LLC, the building’s managing agent and a joint venture, because Property Resources Corp., the decedent’s employer, was a general partner of Aldus and a member of NHP/PRC *(see, Rainey v Jefferson Vil. Condo No. 11 Assoc.,*203 AD2d 544, *lv denied*84 NY2d 804; *Rossi v C.C.O. Equip.,*200 AD2d 933, *lv denied*84 NY2d 802). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs’ argument, relying on cases involving corporations *(e.g., Buchner v Pines Hotel,*87 AD2d 691, *affd*58 NY2d 1019), that even though partnerships, unlike corporations, have no existence independent of the persons who create or control them *(see, Coplan v Coplan,*268 NY 445, 447), the different names that defendants gave their various associations in order to obtain benefits under article V of the Private Housing Finance Law, and their stringent respect for the separateness of such associations in order to retain those benefits, should preclude them from now claiming that such associations constitute a single integrated enterprise. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         265,155
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,078,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                   195,303
<INVENTORY>                                  3,185,693
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,649,407
<PP&E>                                       2,088,968
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,592,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,167,474
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,532,894
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        225
<COMMON>                                        24,570
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,650,215
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,167,474
<SALES>                                     10,818,776
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,818,776
<CGS>                                        8,527,808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,653,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (220,432)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             476,918
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                150,200
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   530,974
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE, et al. , Plaintiffs,
v. EXPORT IMPORT BANK, et al. , Defendants. / No. C 13-03532 WHA

NOTICE REGARDING UPCOMING HEARING

Your case is set for a motion hearing on N OVEMBER 14, 2013

. Please remember our need to train our next generation of lawyers. So please consider the advisability of assigning the argument to a lawyer of less than four years experience out of law school in your office. If you send a letter soon stating that such a lawyer will conduct the argument (for at least one side), then the heari ng will definitely go forward; otherwise, the Court may rule in advance based on the papers if it concludes an oral argument would be of limited value in resolving the motion, in which case the hearing would be vacated. If you intend to submit such a letter, please do so by NOON ON O CTOBER 24, 2013, AT N OON
.

Dated: October 21, 2013. 

### W ILLIAM 

### A LSUP 

### U NITED 

### S TATES 

### D ISTRICT 

### J UDGE
DEFENDANT: Waunita Weingart

YEAR OF BIRTH: 1952

ADDRESS: Denver, Colorado

COMPLAINT FILED? YES X NO 

IF YES, PROVIDE MAGISTRATE CASE NUMBER: 

HAS DEFENDANT BEEN ARRESTED ON COMPLAINT? YES X NO

IF NO, A NEW WARRANT IS REQUIRED

OFFENSE: Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11: Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343

Counts 13, 14, 15, 16, 18: Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Property

Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity, 18 U.S.C. § 1957

LOCATION OF OFFENSE: Denver, Boulder, and Douglas Counties, Colorado

PENALTY: Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11: (Each Count): NMT 20 years’ imprisonment

and/or NMT $250,000 fine; $100.00 Special Assessment Fee.

Counts 13, 14, 15, 16, 18: NMT 10 years’ imprisonment and/or NMT $250,000 

fine; $100.00 Special Assessment Fee.

AGENT: Special Agent Scott Doner, F.B.I.

AUTHORIZED BY: Linda Kaufman

Assistant U.S. Attorney

ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL:

 five days or less X over five days other

THE GOVERNMENT

 X will seek detention in this case will not seek detention in this case

The statutory presumption of detention is not applicable to this defendant.

OCDETF CASE: Yes X No

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 1-1 filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
#### Thurman Payne, Appellant, v Dorian King, Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 910]

Order and partial judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about October 22, 2001, which declared that plaintiff was *363a holdover tenant and granted possession to defendant, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and also to amend his answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Based on the history of use of the subject premises and in particular of the plaintiffs rental of the ground floor and parlor floor, and the condition of the premises during the tenancy, this space was not a single room occupancy within the meaning of the Multiple Dwelling Law, and the premises are not subject to rent stabilization.

Motion seeking stay granted only to the extent of staying eviction for 30 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry on condition plaintiff continues to pay all use and occupancy, as directed by an order of a Justice of this Court dated April 12, 2002, and otherwise denied. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01968-PAB-BNB

BYRON P. MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC., 

Defendant.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

This matter is before me on review of the file. One of my sisters is a partner at

the law firm of Holland & Hart, who has entered an appearance for defendant United

Parcel Service Inc. For this reason, it would be inappropriate for me to preside over this

case. Accordingly, I will recuse myself. It is therefore 

ORDERED that the judge’s file be returned to the clerk’s office for the case to be

reassigned by random draw.

DATED August 29, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01968-CMA-BNB Document 12 Filed 08/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                         123,807
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,708,683
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (165,670)
<INVENTORY>                                    181,354
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,982,324
<PP&E>                                      11,335,310
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,942,891)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,103,772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,905,318
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,750
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,838,429
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,103,772
<SALES>                                     34,540,269
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,540,269
<CGS>                                       31,818,008
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,818,008
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,691,872
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,877
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             600,583
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (577,071)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (577,071)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (577,071)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23 

 

 

 

 

 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (File Nos. 33‐61949, 33-52786, 33‐36609 and 33‐23837) of the A.G. Edwards, Inc. 1988 Incentive Stock Plan on Form S‐8 of our report datedApril 18, 2001, appearing in and/or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10‐K of A.G. Edwards, Inc. for the year ended February 28, 2001. 

 

 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
**Exhibit 13**

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

 

I, Brian Charles Hartzer, certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 30 September 2018 of Westpac Banking Corporation (the “issuer”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

 

 
|   | Date: 5   November 2018                   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                           |
|   |                                           |
|   |                                           |
|   |                                           |
|   | /s/ Brian Charles Hartzer                      |
|   | Brian Charles Hartzer                          |
|   | Managing Director andChief   Executive Officer |

 

I, Peter Francis King, certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 30 September 2018 of Westpac Banking Corporation (the “issuer”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

 

 
|   | Date: 5   November 2018 |
|--------|------------------------------|
|   |                         |
|   |                         |
|   |                         |
|   |                         |
|   | /s/ Peter Francis King       |
|   | Peter Francis King           |
|   | Chief Financial Officer      |

 

----
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-10 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 10
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-10 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 10
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-10 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 10
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-10 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 10
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-10 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 10
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-10 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 10
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-10 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 10
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-10 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 10
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-10 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 10
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-10 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 10 of

10
Case 1:11-cv-02261-LTB Document 2 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02261-LTB Document 2 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02261-LTB Document 2 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02261-LTB Document 2 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00677-CR

Kasey Schafler, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 6 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CR-17-203861, THE HONORABLE BRANDY MUELLER, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellant Kasey Schafler seeks to appeal her judgment of conviction for

misdemeanor driving while intoxicated. See Tex. Penal Code § 49.04(a), (d). The clerk’s record,

however, does not contain the required trial court certification of appellant’s right of appeal, see Tex.

R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) (mandating trial court to enter certification of defendant’s right of appeal “each

time it enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order”), (d) (requiring record to include trial

court’s certification), and the district clerk has informed this Court that a certification cannot be

produced because no such document has been filed with the clerk.

This appeal is therefore abated and the trial court is directed to prepare and file its

certification of appellant’s right of appeal as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 44.4. A supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s

certification shall be filed with this Court no later than January 9, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d),

34.5(c)(2).

It is so ordered on this the 10th day of December, 2018.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Abated and Remanded

Filed: December 10, 2018

Do Not Publish

2
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 104 

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to establish criminal 

penalties for knowingly and willfully falsifying or failing to file or report 

certain information required to be reported under that Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to establish 

criminal penalties for knowingly and willfully falsifying 

or failing to file or report certain information required 

to be reported under that Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. KNOWING AND WILLFUL FALSIFICATION OR 

4 FAILURE TO REPORT. 

5 Section 104 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 

6 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended— 

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(a)’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 104 IS

1 ‘‘(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to know2 ingly and willfully falsify, or to knowingly and willingly 

3 fail to file or report, any information that such person is 

4 required to report under section 102. 

5 ‘‘(B) Any person who violates subparagraph (A) shall 

6 be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned 

7 for not more than 1 year, or both.’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,226
<SECURITIES>                                    16,137
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                       730
<INVENTORY>                                      5,948
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,498
<PP&E>                                          81,770
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,045
<BONDS>                                         35,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           181
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,510
<SALES>                                        145,389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,389
<CGS>                                           79,104
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,598
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,748
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,698
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,698
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
        

</TABLE>