alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

Courtroom Deputy: Patricia Glover Date: June 18, 2012

Court Reporter: Paul Zuckerman

Probation Officer: Susan Heckman

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00412-MSK

Parties: Counsel:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, James Boma

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT MASON BYAS, Robert Berger

Defendant.

SENTENCING MINUTES

______________________________________________________________________________

9:07 a.m. Court in session.

Defendant present in custody.

Change of Plea Hearing on March 26, 2012. Defendant pled guilty to 1, 11 and 12 of the

Superseding Indictment.

The Government orally moves to dismiss all counts of the underlying Indictment against this

defendant. Defendant has no objection.

ORDER: The Government’s oral motion to dismiss the underlying Indictment against this

defendant is GRANTED.

Parties received and reviewed the presentence report and all addenda.

The parties do not dispute the facts contained in the presentence report.

The parties do not dispute the calculation of the sentence under the Federal Sentencing

Guidelines as set forth in the original presentence report.

The Government does request departure (Doc. #290).

The parties do not contend that the sentence should be different from that calculated under the

Sentencing Guidelines in light of the sentencing objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section

3553(a).
Sentencing Minutes

Judge Marcia S. Krieger

Page 2

Allocution. - Statements made by: The Government, defense counsel.

After consideration of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3553 (a), the Court announces the sentence it

intends to impose as reflected in the record. Counsel are offered the opportunity for further

argument. No further argument.

ORDER: The Government’s Motion for Decrease for Acceptance of Responsibility (Doc.

#244) is GRANTED.

ORDER: The Government’s Motion for Downward Departure (Doc. #290) is GRANTED.

THE DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED AS REFLECTED IN THE RECORD.

The defendant is advised of his right to appeal.

ORDER: Defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal for the

District of Colorado.

9:32 a.m. Court in recess.

Total Time: 25 minutes.

Hearing concluded.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40927 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PEDRO QUIROZ-ESCANDON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-190-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pedro Quiroz-Escandon appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Quiroz-Escandon contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority ofNo. 05-40927 -2- the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Quiroz-Escandon properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Because Quiroz-Escandon has shown no error in the judgment of the district court, that judgment is AFFIRMED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

BOBBIE LEE DANIELS

,

a / k / a BOBBY LEE DANIELS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D 20 22

- 4137

August 16, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michael S.

Williams, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine,

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes,

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, LaROSE, a nd BLACK , JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50219 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. JAMES B. MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-94-CV-60

_________________________________________________________________ February 14, 1997 Before KING, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James B. Mitchell, No. 47109-080, appeals the district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. We need not determine whether Mitchell needs a certificate of appealability (COA) under the newly enacted Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996); 28 U.S.C.2

§ 2253(c)(1)(B). After reviewing the record and the arguments on appeal, we would neither grant a COA if the amendment applies, nor would we grant relief under the unamended version of § 2255. We make this determination for substantially the reasons cited by the district court. See United States v. Mitchell , DR-89-CR-8 (Jan. 12, 1996). Mitchell’s argument that the Government breached its plea agreement also fails under the intervening case United States v. Price , 95 F.3d 364, 368-69 (5th Cir. 1996). AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Norman McCorkel, Appellant.

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), both rendered on September 8, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of from 3 to 6 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the admission of his arrest photograph constituted reversible error. This argument is without merit. As the Court of Appeals held in *People v Logan*(25 NY2d 184, 195-196), it is not improper to admit an arrest photograph to show that the defendant’s appearance had changed from the time of his arrest.

At trial, defendant’s hairstyle was completely different from that at the time of his arrest. The photograph was introduced solely to show the jury the difference in his appearance. The prosecutor did not attempt to bolster his witness’s testimony. In addition, the jury was unaware from the photograph that defendant had a prior criminal record since the arrest photograph merely showed that he was arrested on September 28, 1986, the date the instant robbery occurred.

The order of this court entered herein on December 12, 1989 and the memorandum decision filed therewith [156 AD2d 212] are recalled and vacated. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99.1





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 North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, H. R. Brown,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/ H. R. BrownH. R. Brown President and Chief Executive Officer





Date:  November 14, 2002
#### Bell et al. *v.*The State, ex rel. The Methodist Book Concern.

(No. 25289

Decided May 8, 1935.)

*Mr. Louis J. Schneider,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Walter M. Locke*and *Mr. Greg R. Williams,*for plaintiffs in error.

*464
      *Mr. Harry J. Koehler, Jr.,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and decreed that the judgment of the Court of Appeals be, and the same hereby is, affirmed upon the unambiguous provisions of Sections 1465-31, 5611-1, 5611-2 and 5609, General Code, and upon the authority of *State, ex rel. Ohio Bell Telephone Co.,*v. *Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County,*128 Ohio St., 553, 192 N. E., 787; *State, ex rel. Bettman, Atty. Genl.,*v. *Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County,*124 Ohio St., 269, 178 N. E., 258, 78 A. L. R., 1079, and *State, ex rel. Tax Commission of Ohio,*v. *Faust, Aud.,*113 Ohio St., 365, 149 N. E., 197.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
816 A.2d 152

#### IN THE MATTER OF PAUL J. PASKEY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 029701983)

February 28, 2003.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-265 and DRB 02-266, concluding that PAUL J. PASKEY of BAYONNE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, and who has been suspended from the practice of law since May 9, 2002, pursuant to Orders of the Court filed May 9, 2002, September 18, 2002 and December 11, 2002, should be suspended from the practice of law for a further period of six months, consecutive to respondent’s current six-month suspension, for violating *RPC*l.l(a)(gross neglect), *RPC*1.1(b) (pattern of neglect), *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(a)(failure to communicate with clients), and *RPC*8.1(b)(failure to cooperate with ethics authorities);

And the Disciplinary Review Board further having concluded that respondent should not be reinstated to practice until the *501conclusion of all ethics matters pending against him and that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent should be required to demonstrate his fitness to practice law as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that PAUL J. PASKEY is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, effective June 18, 2003, and until the conclusion of all ethics proceedings pending against him and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent shall submit proof of his fitness to practice law as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire- record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02528-BNB

KENNETH CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

USAA AUTO INJURY SOLUTIONS,

Defendant.

ORDER DRAWING CASE

Following review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2C, the Court has determined

that this case does not appear to be appropriate for summary dismissal. Therefore, the

case will be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR

8.2D. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate

judge.

DATED November 21, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02528-PAB-MEH Document 8 Filed 11/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GRIFFIN TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee,

AND

OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC 

(doing business as Otterbox),

Intervenor.

______________________ 

2013-1230

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States International Trade 

Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-780.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

TERRY L. CLARK, Bass, Berry & Sims, PLC, of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. 

PANYIN A. HUGHES, Attorney, Office of the General 

Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, 
 

of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With him on the 

brief were PAUL R. BARDOS, Acting General Counsel, and 

SIDNEY A. ROSENWEIG, Acting Assistant General Counsel. 

Of counsel was WAYNE W. HERRINGTON, Attorney. 

LOUIS S. MASTRIANI, Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for intervenor. 

With him on the brief were DANIEL F. SMITH and EVAN H.

LANGDON. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

PER CURIAM (O’MALLEY, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

December 12, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ILTON YOAO ESTR

ADA OLIVER

A, AKA M ilton Estra da , AKA M ilton Olive ra , Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 14-70257 Age n c y No. A043-802-503 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2015 ** B e fore : W ALLAC E, R AW LINSON, a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. M ilton Yoa o Estra da Olive ra , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for c anc e lla

tion of 

# FIL ED DEC 16 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).re m ova l. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w de novo c onstitutiona

l c la im s a nd que stions of la

w, Vilc he z v . Holde r , 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th C ir. 2012), a

n d we de ny

in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. Our jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of c anc e lla tion of re m o va l a s a m atte r of disc re tion is lim ite d to que s tions of la

w a nd c onstitutiona

l c la im s, 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(B ),(D), and Estra da Olive ra ha s not e sta

blishe d tha

t the B IA use d an inc orre c t s ta

nda rd or c onside re d im

p e rm issiblefa c tors in m aking its disc re tiona

ry de te rm i nation, se e Me

j ia v . Gonzale

s , 499 F.3d 991, 999 (9th C ir. 2007). In a ddition, the

a ge nc y did not e rr in re l y i ng on the2009 polic e re port in e va luating his e ligibility

a s a m atte r of disc re tion. Se e Espinoza v . IN S , 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th C ir. 1995) (“ The sole te st for a dm ission of e vide nc e is whe the r the e vide nc e is proba

t ive and its a dm i ssion is funda m e nta lly fa ir.” ); Torre

s-Valdiv ias v . Ly nc h , 786 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ In the c onte xt of the B IA’ s disc re tiona

ry de c isions, wehave note d tha t ‘ it is prope r [for the B IA] to look to probat ive e vide nc e outsidethe re c ord of c onvic tion . . . to dete rm ine whe the r a favora ble e xe rc ise of disc re tion is wa rrante d.’ ” ) (quoting Tok

atly v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 613, 621 (9th C ir. 2004)); Lata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (e rror is re q

uire d to e sta

blish dueproc e ss viola

tion).

1 4 - 7 0 2 5 7 2Fina lly , Estra da Olive ra ha s not e sta

blishe d tha t the B IA fa i le d to c onside r his c onte n tions on a

ppe a l . S e e N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 4 - 7 0 2 5 7 3
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.3

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                                   INRAD, INC.

                          Pursuant to N.J.S. 14A:7-2(4)

                              Dated: April 30, 1999

                  The undersigned corporation, having adopted an amendment to
its certificate of incorporation establishing a new series of preferred stock,
hereby certifies as follows:

                  1. The name of the corporation is INRAD, INC.

                  2. The following is a copy of the resolution of the board
required by N.J.S. 14A:7-2(3):

                  RESOLVED, that the corporation's certificate of incorporation
                  be, and it hereby is, amended by added a new Article IX, such
                  Article IX to read as shown in Exhibit A annexed hereto,
                  establishing a new series of preferred stock within the
                  corporation's Preferred Stock, such series to be designated
                  Series A 10% Convertible Preferred Stock, to consist of 500
                  shares of stock, and to have the relative rights, preferences,
                  and limitations set out in Exhibit A.

                  3. The resolution was duly adopted by the board of directors
on April ___, 1999.

<PAGE>

                  4. The corporation's certificate of incorporation is further
amended so that the designation and number of shares of the series acted
upon in the annexed resolution, and the relative rights, preferences and
limitations of that series, are as stated in the resolution.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned corporation has caused
this certificate to be executed on its behalf by its duly authorized officer as
of the date first above written.

                                                INRAD, INC.


                                                By: /s/ Warren Ruderman
                                                    -----------------------
                                                    Warren Ruderman, President

                                      -2-
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10111

Conference Calendar

 

VINCENT LOUIS HAYNES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:00-CV-1326-R

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

June 14, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Vincent Haynes appeals the dismissal of his complaint, filed

pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2671

et seq., alleging claims of false arrest and false imprisonment

stemming from his arrest and conviction for cocaine possession

with the intent to distribute. Haynes argues that the district

court erred in dismissing the complaint because the court did not

apply state law to his claims and it did not instruct him, a pro

se litigant, to amend his complaint. He further argues that the
No. 01-10111

-2-

district court did not rule on his motion for preliminary injunction.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a

plaintiff’s case on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6). See Eason v. Holt, 73 F.3d 600, 601 (5th Cir.

1996). 

Dismissal of the complaint was appropriate. Because

resolution of this action would necessarily affect the validity

of Haynes' conviction and sentence, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477 (1994) mandates dismissal since no cause of action accrues

unless and until Haynes can show that his conviction has been

declared invalid. 

Haynes’ argument that the district court erred in not

instructing him to amend his complaint is raised for the first

time on appeal, and, therefore, we do not consider it. See

Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.

1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1138 (2000). Haynes’ arguments

concerning the application of respondeat superior to his claims

are likewise not entertained, having also been raised for the

first time on appeal. 

Haynes’ motion for preliminary injunction was made moot by

the district court’s dismissal of his complaint. See Louisiana

World Exposition, Inc., v. Logue, 746 F.2d 1033, 1038 (5th Cir.

1984). The decision 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 Number 11-cv-02549-RPM

CLARK WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLORADO SPRINGS PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA,

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________________

ORDER VACATING ORDER OF REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

___________________________________________________________________________________

The Order of Reference to Magistrate Judge Kristin L. Mix entered September 30, 2011 [2] and

the scheduling conference set for January 26, 2012 are vacated.

DATED: November 7th , 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

 Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02549-RPM Document 10 Filed 11/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1