alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Acey HAYNES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 34641.

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division One.

Dec. 19, 1972.

Lawrence O. Willbrand, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., David Robards, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

*234WEIER, Acting Presiding Judge.

Defendant was convicted of a violation of § 564.610, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., which prohibits the carrying of a concealed weapon. His appeal is directed to a claimed improper instruction. We affirm.

Defendant was a passenger in a car stopped by police because of speeding. When an officer approached the side where defendant passenger was seated, he observed defendant with his right hand in a cardboard box. Defendant withdrew his right hand and closed the top flaps of the box with his left. When defendant got out of the car the officer observed what appeared to be a shotgun barrel protruding from the rear of the box toward the seat. The officer opened the box and found a fully loaded, sawed-off, twelve gauge, automatic shotgun.

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in submitting Instruction No. 1 to the jury because it failed to require that the jury find defendant intended to carry the weapon within easy reach and control. That defendant carried the weapon within easy reach and control was a disputed fact controverted by defendant and the driver of the automobile. This was an essential element of the crime under the facts of this case. State v. Bordeaux, Mo., 337 S.W.2d 47, 48 [3]. It was properly hypothesized in the instruction, a copy of Instruction No. 13.10 of the Draft Pattern Criminal Instructions prepared by a special committee of the Missouri Bar. But the law does not require that intent to so carry be found by the jury. The intent required to sustain conviction goes to the concealment prohibited by § 564.610, supra. State v. Holbert, Mo., 416 S.W.2d 129, 132 [7]; State v. Carter, 259 Mo. 349, 168 S.W. 679, 681 [2], It was therefore not error for the court to use this instruction which required a finding of intent as to concealment but not a finding of intent to carry the weapon within easy reach and control.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

CLEMENS and McMILLIAN, JJ„ concur.
BELINDA HILL

FIRST ASSISTANT

CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER

1201 FRANKLIN, SUITE 600

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-1901

DEVON ANDERSON

DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

November 2, 2015

Christopher A. Prine, Clerk

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

301 Fannin Street

Houston, TX 77002-2066

RE: Ex parte Larry Flores

Court of Appeals Numbers: 14-15-00619-CR & 14-15-00620-CR 

Trial Court Case Numbers: 1473497 & 1473498

Dear Mr. Prine:

This case is an appeal from the denial of relief on the appellant’s pre-trial writ of 

habeas corpus seeking a reduction in the amount of his bail. I write to apprise the 

Court of a status change in the appellant’s trial date. 

The record in this case indicated that it was set for trial on September 16, 2015. In 

the State’s brief, I advised this Court that that date had been reset and the case was 

set for trial on October 9, 2015. On October 8, I wrote this Court to advise that the 

trial had been rescheduled for October 23. 

Somehow that date was pushed off until October 26, at which point the appellant 

requested that the trial judge recuse herself based on her connection, when she was 

a prosecutor, to a charge that was filed against him in the early 90s. The trial court 

has now granted that motion, and the case is in the process of being transferred to 

another judge.

The State has been attempting to go to trial on this case since mid-September. 

Because a trial would render this appeal moot, I have attempted to keep this Court 

of apprised of proceedings in the trial court. As of now, it is anyone’s guess when a 

trial will occur, and I do not anticipate filing further updates on this matter.

ACCEPTED

14-15-00619-CR

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

11/2/2015 10:27:44 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 11/2/2015 10:27:44 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Sincerely,

/s/ C.A. Morgan

CLINTON A. MORGAN

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

morgan_clinton@dao.hctx.net

713.274.5826

cc: Clint Davidson
Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. * 

# U nitedStates C ou rt o f App eal s

For th e Firs t C ircu it

No. 06-1614 MYRNA GÓMEZ-PÉREZ, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v . JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant, Appellee.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before Torruella, Circuit Judge, Baldock, Senior Circuit Judge,

* and Howard, Circuit Judge.
Edelmiro A. Salas-González, with whom José L. Ramírez-de León was on brief, for appellant. August E. Flentje, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, with whom Leonard Schaitman, Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, and David G. Karro, Attorney, Unite d States Postal Service, were on brief, for appellee.
July 10, 2008-2- TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Myrna Gómez-Pérez ("Gómez"), a former window distribution clerk at the United States Postal Service ("USPS") in Dorado and Moca, Puerto Rico, sued the USPS and the Postmaster General, John Potter, in his official capacity. She alleged, inter alia, that her superviso r s retaliated against her for filing an equal opportunity employment complaint with the USPS,and that this retaliation constituted a violation of the federalsector provision of the Age Discr i m i nation in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 633a. The district court granted summary judgment for the USPS and Potter on the ground th a t t h e ywere entitled to sovereign immunity. G ó mez-Pérez v. Potter, 2006 WL 488060 (D.P.R. Feb. 28, 2006).

On appeal, we held that the district court had erred in finding sovereign immunity applicable, as Congress h as waived sovereign immunity for the USPS. Gómez-Pérez v. Potter, 476 F.3d 54, 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) . W e affirmed summary judgment for the USPS and Potter, howev e r , u pon deciding that Congress did not intend for § 633a to include a cause of action for retaliation for filing an age-discrimination complaint. Id. at 60. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding th a t Congress did indeed intend such a cause of action in § 633a, and remanded to us for further proceedings. Gómez-Pérez v. Potter, 128 S. Ct. 1931, 1943 (2008). The Court expressed no disapproval of our holding on sovereign immunity.-3- In light of the Supreme Court's unequiv o c a l conclusion that § 633a includes a cause of action for ret a l i a t i o n , and the continued viability of our holding on sovereign immunity, we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the USPS and Potter. We also vacate Part II(B) of our opinion, 476 F.3d at 57-60, and remand the case to the district court for further proce e d i n g s consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court and Part II(A) of our opinion.

Reversed and remanded.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 JUNE 4, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_____________________________

No. 07-12585

_____________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00013 CR-WLS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARVIN KIRK JONES,

SHANIKA NATASHA JONES,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________________________

(June 4, 2008)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Briefly stated, Defendants in the criminal law appeal raise these issues:

(1) Was the district court required, as a matter of law, to acquit all

three of the co-defendants when it acquitted one co-defendant of the

alleged conspiracy?
2

(2) Was the evidence insufficient to support Defendant Shanika

Jones’s conviction?

(3) Is the failure of the court reporter to transcribe recorded telephone

conversations a substantial and significant omission from the trial

record?

(4) Did the district court commit plain error when it admitted

extrinsic fact evidence for the jury’s consideration in evaluating

Defendants’ alleged mens rea?

(5) Did the district court err when it failed to identify and address an

alleged conflict of interest involving Defendant Shanika Jones’s

counsel?

We answer the questions, “No.” 

The fifth question, in effect, seems to contain a challenge to the conviction

based on a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel which we decline to decide on

direct appeal. We note that neither Shanika Jones nor her counsel ever objected to

or made any motion or did anything to draw the district court’s attention to the

possibility of a conflict of interest. The matter was apparently drawn to the district

court’s attention after the verdict and after the trial by a communication to the

judge from the co-defendant. At sentencing, the judge asked some questions about

a possible conflict. Ms. Jones’s lawyer gave an explanation for why she felt she

had no conflicted interests. The district court then stated that there did not appear

to be a conflict and went forward. No one has argued that the purported conflict
3

impacted on counsel’s work at sentencing. Nor was a motion made to the district

court (before this appeal) to set aside the conviction on account of a conflict. On

this record, the district court did not commit plain error or even abuse its

discretion. Considering the need for other evidence, we leave the issue of

ineffectiveness at trial to be possibly decided by means of collateral review. 

Today’s decision is intended to be without prejudice to a later action for collateral

review. 

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 37 Panagrossi Circle, East Haven, CT 06512, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov*. Please reference the website listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                         *http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​.*

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on July 25, 2007. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for July 2010. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Commercial Gauger Laboratory Program Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060. 

Dated: January 31, 2008. 

 Ira S. Reese, 

 Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

 [FR Doc. E8-2433 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
Exhibit Number 10.05

                         WEST TELESERVICES CORPORATION

To:    John Erwin

From:  Nancee Berger

Date:  February 3, 2000

Re:    2000 Compensation Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The compensation plan for 2000 while you are employed as President of the
Outbound Services Division for West TeleServices Corporation is being revised as
indicated below:

1.   Your base salary will remain at $200,000.00. Should you elect to
     voluntarily terminate your employment, you will be compensated for your
     services through the date of your actual termination per your Employment
     Agreement. This will be reviewed on an annual basis and revised, if
     necessary in accordance with the consumer price index.

2.   The rate factors used to calculate your pre-tax profit bonus are being
     revised according to the schedule below.  You are eligible to receive a
     quarterly performance bonus based on each quarter's pre-tax profit growth
     when compared to the same quarter the previous year.  A negative
     differential will result in a loss carry forward to be applied to future
     bonus calculations.  The bonus will be calculated by multiplying the year-
     to-date pre-tax profit differential times the rate factor from the table
     below minus bonuses paid year-to-date for the respective calendar year.

          Rate Factor         WTO Pre-Tax Profit
          -----------         ------------------
             0%                      0% -  6%
             5%                    6.1% -  7%
             6%                    7.1% -  8%
             7%                    8.1% -  9%
             8%                    9.1% - 10%
            8.5%                  10.1% - 11%

                    /s/ John W. Erwin
                    ------------------------
                    Employee - John W. Erwin
EXHIBIT 32.2

               CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned  hereby certifies in her capacity as Chief Financial  Officer of
Belrose Capital Fund LLC (the "Fund"), that:

(a)  the Annual Report of the Fund on Form 10K/A for the year ended December 31,
     2003 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund
     for such period.


Date:  June 30, 2004




                                   /s/ Michelle A. Alexander
                                   -------------------------
                                   Michelle A. Alexander
                                   Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 20, 2020 s0513

Order 

Clerk

May 20, 2020

160753

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160753

COA: 345243

Wayne CC: 18-003452-FH

DEANDRE TAIWAN HAYWOOD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 26, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the November 8, 2019 order of the Court of 

Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals, as on reconsideration 

granted, for plenary consideration of the defendant’s arguments, including the contention 

that in other cases, the Court of Appeals has remanded to the trial court for a 

determination whether to appoint appellate counsel for the defendant-appellee. See, e.g., 

People v Skipp, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, issued July 11, 2018 (Docket 

No. 344349), People v Adams, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, issued June 5, 

2013 (Docket No. 316114), and People v Nino, unpublished order of the Court of 

Appeals, issued July 10, 2018 (Docket No. 344364).

We do not retain jurisdiction.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6540

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JAMES THOMAS WEBB , Defendant

- Appellant

.

No. 22

- 6095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JAMES THOMAS WEBB , Defendant

- Appellant.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:12

- cr - 00301

- D

- 1; 5:17

- cv - 00081

- D )

Submitted : June 1, 2022 Decided: July 22, 2022 USCA4 Appeal: 21-6540 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge , and THACKER and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
James Thomas Webb, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Ca rolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6540 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:
James Thomas Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying his motion for a certificate of appealability and denying his motion for relief from the district court’s prior order d ismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion

. The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ) ;
United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial show ing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by showing that reasonable jurists c ould find the district
court’s assessment of the constitutio nal claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must show both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the
motion states a deb atable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Webb has not made the requisite showi ng. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny his motion for judicial notice, and dismiss the appeal s . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-6540 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 17, 2009*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.128 Real Estate Investment Trusts REITs** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00275-CR

Anthony PLAID,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. CCL-07-0611

Honorable Frank Follis, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 6, 2010

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is granted, and this appeal is

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 4.13
















CONSENT OF JEAN-FRANÇOIS BÉLANGER







Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2014 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.




I, Jean-François Bélanger, staff member of Anglo American Exploration (Canada) Ltd., participated in the preparation of the technical report entitled “Technical Report and Recommendations, 2013 Exploration Program, Payne Bay Property, Québec, Anglo American Exploration (Canada) Ltd. – Virginia Mines Inc.” completed in March 2014 (the “Report”), concerning mineralized material in the Payne Bay property for the Company. Portions of the Report are summarized under headings “Item III – Description of the Business – 3.5.4 Geological Setting; 3.5.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.5.6 Mineralization” in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2014 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein). 




I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.







Very truly yours,














				
	 
	/S/

Jean-François Bélanger

	 
	 

	 
	Name:

Jean-François Bélanger B.Eng., Jr.Eng.

	 
	 












May 15, 2014
Exhibit 32.2 JAVA EXPRESS, Inc. Certification Of Principal Financial Officer
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 annual report of Java Express, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010, Del Higginson hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein. Date: June 22, 2010 /s/ Del Higginson Del Higginson Principal Financial Officer