alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Laccone, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered March 24, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and certain statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, on appeal, challenges the propriety of the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence and a statement made to the police following his arrest. He claims that the testimony of the arresting officer was incredible as a matter of law. It is, however, well settled that issues of credibility are primarily for the hearing court and its findings should not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous *(see, People v Armstead,*98 AD2d 726).

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, we find that the record supports the hearing court’s conclusion that the police properly stopped the vehicle which the defendant was driving after having witnessed the defendant violate various provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law *(see, People v Ingle,*36 NY2d 413; *People v Allah,*131 AD2d 765; *People v Robinson,*115 AD2d 411). Once the defendant failed to produce his license, registration or insurance documentation, the police acted appropriately in ordering the defendant to exit the vehicle *(see, People v Reynolds,*104 AD2d 611). The record, additionally, supports the conclusion that the observation by the police of what appeared to be marihuana protruding from the defendant’s pocket, constituted a lawful predicate for the arrest and search of the defendant. This search resulted in the discovery and confiscation of a compound, which was later found to contain a quantity of cocaine.

We further find that the hearing court properly denied suppression of an inculpatory statement made by the defen*898dant to the police after his arrest since the statement was spontaneous and not in response to any custodial interrogation *(see, People v Theohary,*142 AD2d 620; *People v Pileggi,*141 AD2d 866; *People v Suarez,*140 AD2d 558). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02611-PAB-MEH

DELORES MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE ESTATE OF AUSTIN KRAAL and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation

authorized to do business in the State of Colorado,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Dismissal of Defendant State

Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company [Docket No. 23], in which plaintiff

requests dismissal of defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Despite Rule 41(a)(1)’s reference to the

dismissal of an “action,” the weight of authority permits a dismissal of all claims

pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) against fewer than all defendants. See Montoya v. FedEx

Ground Package System, Inc., 614 F.3d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 2010); Blaize-Sampeur v.

McDowell, 2007 WL 1958909, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2007) (noting that, although the

Second Circuit had previously stated otherwise, it had “since adopted the approach of

the majority of courts in other circuits – that is, that Rule 41(a) does not require

dismissal of the action in its entirety” and permits dismissal of all claims as to a single

defendant). Upon the filing of the Notice of Dismissal [Docket No. 23], this action was

Case 1:11-cv-02611-PAB-MEH Document 24 Filed 05/07/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

dismissed without prejudice as to defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Company.

DATED May 7, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02611-PAB-MEH Document 24 Filed 05/07/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 19

- 00448

- CV

D. J. and A. S., Appellant s

v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 300,832

- B, THE H ONORABLE JACK WELD O N JONES, JUDGE PRESI DING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM
Appellant A. S. filed her notice of appeal on July 5, 2019. The appellate record
was complete on July 15, 2019, making appellant ’ s brief due on August 5, 2019

. On

August 8, 2019, counsel for appellant fi l ed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’s

brief.

T he rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals

from suits for termin ation of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days

for court’s fi n al disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting
extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order counsel to file appellant’s brief

no later than August 26, 2 019. If the brief is not filed by that dat e , counsel may be required to
show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on August 20, 2019

.

Before Chief Justic e Rose, Justices Triana and Smith
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez 

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00376-WJM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. EXECUTIVE RECYCLING, INC.,

2. BRANDON RICHTER, and

3. TOR OLSON,

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING GOVERNMENT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION 

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the government’s motion for a Protective Order

(ECF No. 163) pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1) covering the shipper export

declarations (SEDs) bates stamped 00008513 to 00009664. The Court having

considered this motion and for good cause shown it hereby ORDERS as follows:

The Government’s Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. Specifically the Court

ORDERS that the SEDs previously provided by governed by the following conditions:

1. Defense counsel shall keep the SEDs and any notes or other materials prepared

based upon or referring to information in the SEDs in strict confidence. Defense

counsel shall use them exclusively in connection with this case (including trial

preparation, motions practice, trial, and appeals or other related legal

proceedings) and for no other purpose.

2. The SEDs may be viewed only by defense counsel and such members of their

staff as are necessary for the purposes outlined above and, as it pertains to staff,
-2-

only while necessary staff are operating under the direct supervision and control

of defense counsel. Defense counsel shall ensure that all persons in their offices

who are to handle such information read this Order and are informed of their

responsibility to safeguard this information. The SEDs may also be shared with

defense experts and investigators but again, such experts and investigators must

read this Order and be informed of their responsibility to safeguard this

information.

3. Defense counsel shall make only such copies as are necessary to prepare a

defense of this criminal case. Defense counsel will maintain a log of any copies

distributed to experts or investigators, and will include a copy of this Order along

with any such copies. 

4. Defense counsel shall provide the Defendants with reasonable access to the

SEDs, and ensure that the Defendants do not retain any copies of the SEDs, or

any notes made by Defendants or others in connection with the SEDs.

5. At the conclusion of the case, including any appeals, by entry of the Court's

judgment, defense counsel within ten days shall collect any copies provided to

experts or investigators and return them to the Government.

Dated this 24th day of October, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM

KEVIN D. EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First

Amended Complaint Pursuant to Freedom of Information Act, and Rule 7.1(a)

Certification [#34] (the “Motion”). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#34] is DENIED without prejudice for

Plaintiff’s failure to comply fully with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a). Plaintiff provides insufficient

information regarding his efforts to comply. See Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D.

634, 635-36 (D. Colo. 2003) (stating that Rule 7.1(a) requires “meaningful negotiations” by

the parties; “[t]he rule is not satisfied by one party sending a single e-mail [, letter, or voice

message] to another party”). Here, Plaintiff merely states that he “requested the CIA’s

position with respect to this Motion, and the CIA did not respond.” Motion [#34] at 3. This

statement does not inform the Court that a “reasonable, good faith effort” to confer

occurred. After contacting opposing counsel about a disputed matter, the moving party is

advised to wait at least three business days for a response before filing a motion with the

Court.

Dated: February 13, 2014

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM Document 36 Filed 02/13/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### TANNER v. TANNER.

No. 3856.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 29, 1954.

*490Blanchard & Blanchard, Donaldsonville, for appellant.

Miriam Attaya, Donaldsonville, for ap-pellee.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

Petitioner, Athen S. Tanner, filed suit against his wife, Vera Howe Tanner, seeking an absolute divorce on the grounds of two year separation. Defendant reconvened asking that she be granted the divorce, and, among other things, asked for attorney fees in the sum of $350. The Lower 'Court rendered judgment of divorce in favor of petitioner, and awarded the defendant attorney fees in tire sum of $200. The petitioner has taken this appeal.

The only question before us on this appeal is the question of the attorney fees allowed the defendant. The defendant has answered the appeal asking that same be transferred to the Supreme Court under the provisions of Article 7, § 10, paragraph 4 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921 which provides as follows:

> “It (Supreme Court) shall have appellate jurisdiction of all suits for divorce or separation from bed and board, *and of all matters arising therein;*of suits involving alimony, of suits for the nullity of marriage, for interdiction, or involving the tutorship of minors, or curatorship of interdicts, or the legitimacy, or custody of children, and of matters of adoption and emancipation.” (Parenthesis and italics supplied.)

The cited paragraph from our Constitution is clear and unambiguous. It directs that all matters arising in a divorce proceeding is appealable directly to the Supreme Court. The demand for attorney fees is incidental to the demand for a divorce; and the two demands are inseparable. They are incapable of being separated from each other on appeal. DeLesdernier v. DeLesdernier, 45 La.Ann. 1364, 14 So. 191. The Constitution clearly directs that this appeal should have been made to the Supreme Court.

For the reasons assigned it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that this appeal be, and it is hereby, transferred to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, to be disposed of according to law, the transfer to be made within 60 days after this judgment becomes final, and if not so made, then the appeal is to be deemed dismissed. Appellants are to pay the cost of this appeal in this court; and the remaining costs to await final determination of the matter.

Transferred to Supreme Court.
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. 09-50255

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ERIC WILLRICH,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:95-CR-257-1

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eric Willrich has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Willrich has filed a response. Our independent

review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Willrich’s response discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Willrich’s motion to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 12, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-50255 Document: 00511027488 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010
No. 09-50255

2

relieve counsel and for appointment of new counsel is DENIED. Cf. United

States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

Case: 09-50255 Document: 00511027488 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2010
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report of 24Holdings Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Arnold P. Kling, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Dated: May 10, 2011





/s/ Arnold P. KlingArnold P. KlingPresident





A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------

KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENT that the individuals whose signatures appear below, in
their capacities as officers and directors of Immunex Corporation, hereby
constitute and appoint David A. Mann their true and lawful attorney-in-fact,
with full power of substitution, to sign on behalf of the undersigned Immunex's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the 2001 fiscal year pursuant to Section 13 of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and to file the same, with exhibits
thereto and any other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Each of the undersigned does hereby ratify and confirm all
that such attorney-in-fact may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


                 Signature                       Title                Date
                 ---------                       -----                ----

          /s/ Kirby L. Cramer
          -------------------------            Director           March 7, 2002
          (Kirby L. Cramer)

          /s/ Robert J. Herbold
          -------------------------            Director           March 7, 2002
          (Robert J. Herbold)

          /s/ John E. Lyons
          --------------------------           Director           March 7, 2002
          (John E. Lyons)

          /s/ Joseph M. Mahady
          --------------------------           Director           March 7, 2002
          (Joseph M. Mahady)

          /s/ Edith W. Martin
          --------------------------           Director           March 7, 2002
          (Edith W. Martin)

          /s/ Lawrence V. Stein
          --------------------------           Director           March 7, 2002
          (Lawrence V. Stein)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02219-LTB-CBS

ELVIS BAKER and

DORIS BAKER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID THOMSON,

TS ACQUISITION, INC., and

GREYHOUND LINES, INC.,

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER 

________________________________________________________________________

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the Stipulated Motion for Dismissal

With Prejudice of All Claims Against TS Acquisition, Inc. (Doc 13 - filed September 15,

2011), and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is therefore

ORDERED that this matter shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to

Defendant TS Acquisition, Inc. only, each party to pay their own fees and costs. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

DATED: September 16, 2011
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60308-60309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24088]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1794-DR]

Mississippi; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-1794-DR), dated September 22, 2008, 
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 3, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Mississippi is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of September 22, 2008.

    Adams and Wilkinson Counties for Individual Assistance (already 
designated for Public Assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036; 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

[[Page 60309]]

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation 
Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-24088 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```
# **EXHIBIT 99.2**

# ** **

# **CERTIFICATION**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Arctic Cat Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Companyfor the annual period ended March 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff uponrequest.

 
| Date:  June 27, 2003 |                     |   |
|----------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                 |                     |   |
|                 | /s/ Timothy C. Delmore   |   |
|                 | Timothy C. Delmore,      |   |
|                 | Chief Financial  Officer |   |

 

----
815 A.2d 961

#### IN THE MATTER OF ARA R. AVRIGIAN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 042261998).

February 24, 2003.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court pursuant to *Rule*l:20-10(b), following a motion for discipline by consent of ARA R. AVRIGIAN of CHERRY HILL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1998;

And the Office of Attorney Ethics and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated *RPC*8.4(b) (criminal act that reflects adversely on honesty, trustworthiness and fitness to practice);

And the parties having agreed that respondent’s conduct violated *RPC*8.4(b), and that such conduct warrants a three-month suspension from practice;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a three-month suspension is the appropriate discipline for respondent’s ethics violation and having granted the motion for discipline by consent;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having submitted the record of the proceedings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the entry of an order of discipline in accordance with *Rule*l:20-16(e);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ARA F. AVRIGIAN is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months effective March 24, 2003, and until the further Order of the Court; 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

*453ORDERED 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.