alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

LEON HENDERSON ASKEW, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 19-1453 

(D.C. No.1:11-CR-00184-WJM-1) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

After a conviction on drug-and-gun charges,1

 Mr. Leon Askew 

unsuccessfully moved to vacate his sentence. He then filed two requests for 

a “Franks hearing,” which is a hearing on the veracity of an affidavit 

submitted in order to obtain a warrant. United States v. Kennedy, 131 F.3d 

1371, 1376 (10th Cir. 1997). The district court denied both requests, and 

Mr. Askew wants to appeal the second denial of a Franks hearing. 

* This order does not constitute binding precedent except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the 

order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise 

appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). 

1 See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(i), § 924(c)(1)(A); 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(C). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

July 17, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

To appeal, Mr. Askew needs a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B). We can issue the certificate only if Mr. Askew’s appellate 

argument is reasonably debatable. Laurson v. Leyba, 507 F.3d 1230, 1232 

(10th Cir. 2007). 

In our view, Mr. Askew fails to satisfy this standard. He argues that 

the district court should have granted his second request for a Franks 

hearing. If this argument is proven, it could support vacatur of the sentence 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. But Mr. Askew has already filed a § 2255 motion 

and obtained a ruling on the merits. So any new § 2255 motion would be 

second or successive, and the district court would lack jurisdiction in the 

absence of authorization to file a second-or-successive § 2255 motion. In 

re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

Mr. Askew hasn’t stated any grounds for authorization. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(h). So his appellate argument isn’t reasonably debatable and we 

can’t issue a certificate of appealability. Given the absence of a certificate 

of appealability, we dismiss the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).2

 Entered for the Court 

 Robert E. Bacharach 

 Circuit Judge 

2

 We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
#### Lewis Grosner, Appellant, *v.*Gropper Knitting Mills, Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 28, 1926.

Master and servant — breach of employment contract at will — parties stipulated amount due for services — error to set aside directed verdict and dismiss complaint where no damages could accrue under counterclaim.

In an action by an employee for the breach of an employment contract at will in which the amount due for the services performed had been stipulated, it was error to set aside a directed verdict in favor of the plaintiff and to dismiss the complaint although a counterclaim was interposed for breach of the contract, since the defendant conceded that the breach was so minor that no money damages would accrue.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District, setting aside a directed verdict in plaintiff’s favor and dismissing the complaint.

*Isidor Neuwirth [George D. Zahn*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Manuel M. Voit,*for the respondent.

*371Per Curiam.

The rule that failure to perform a service contract while it is in force, resulting in a discharge for cause, gives the servant no action, has no applicability in this case. The contract here was at will; for the employer could bring it to an end at any time. The employer so elected. The servant had, therefore, completed the term and the employer’s remedy for a breach of part of the contract was by counterclaim. As the amount due plaintiff (if any sum was due) was stipulated and as the employer conceded that the breach was so minor in character that no money damages would accrue, the court was correct in its first ruling in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. The setting aside of that Verdict and the dismissal of the complaint was error. Judgment and order reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and verdict for plaintiff reinstated.

All concur; present, Guy, Bijur and Mullan, JJ.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ANTHONY MAYS, Individually and on behalf ) 

of a class of similarly situated persons; and ) 

JUDIA JACKSON, as next friend of KENNETH ) 

FOSTER, Individually and on behalf of a class ) 

of similarly situated persons, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs-Petitioners, ) 

 ) Case No. 1:20-cv-2134 

 v. ) 

 ) The Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly 

THOMAS J. DART, Sheriff of Cook ) Emergency Judge 

County, ) 

 ) The Hon. Robert Gettleman 

 Defendant-Respondent. ) Presiding Judge

Exhibit Description 

A Declaration of Dr. Homer Venters 

B Declaration of Dr. Amir Moheb Mohareb 

C Declaration of Dr. Laura Rasmussin-Torvik 

D 

Declarations of Cook County Jail Detainees Bryant Blake, Kevin 

Watson, Charles Bocock, Javier Montanez, Jeffrey Ferguson, 

Dominick Wing, Lamonte Powell, Dante McGee, Eric Blake, Deon 

Baker, Michael Jorgensen, Isaac Correcillias-Correa, and Joshua 

Barbee 

E 

Basank, et al. v. Decker, et al., No. 20 C 2518, Dkt. 11 (S.D.N.Y. 

Mar. 26, 2020); and Flores, et al. v. Barr, et al., No. 85 C 4544, Dkt. 

740 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2020) 

F 

Savino, et al. v. Souza, No. 20 C 10617, Dkt. 44-45 (D. Mass. Apr. 

4, 2020); Dkt. 77 (D. Mass. Apr. 10, 2020); and Dkt. 86 (D. Mass. 

Apr. 15, 2020) 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 64-1 Filed: 04/19/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1782
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-81,644-01

EX PARTE PATRIC HARRIS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. D-1-DC-13-200950 IN THE 299 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of assault family

violence and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.

Applicant’s claims concerning attorney fees and court costs are dismissed. In re Daniel, 396

S.W.3d 545, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Ex parte Knight, 401 S.W.3d 60, 67 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013). Based on this Court’s independent review of the record, we find that Applicant's remaining

claims are without merit. Therefore, we deny relief.
2

Filed: August 20, 2014

Do not publish
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Make Asteroids You Can Eat","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"AEuuMbZ9A1\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/make-asteroids-you-can-eat\/\">Make Asteroids You Can Eat<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/make-asteroids-you-can-eat\/embed\/#?secret=AEuuMbZ9A1\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Make Asteroids You Can Eat” — NASA\" data-secret=\"AEuuMbZ9A1\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/edu_srch_make_asteroids_you_can_eat_0.jpg?w=320","thumbnail_width":320,"thumbnail_height":229}
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, NIAID Division of Allergy, Immunology and Transplantation: Statistical and Clinical Coordinating Center.                    

*Date:*                         November 17, 2014.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fisher Lane, MSC 9823, Room 3F100, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Paul A. Amstad, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fisher Lane, MSC 9823, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-5067,                         *PAmstad@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 22, 2014.

David Clary, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-25507 Filed 10-27-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 999 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 999

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                  coastwise trade for a hopper barge.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 1997

  Mr. Jones introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                  coastwise trade for a hopper barge.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883) and 
section 12106 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with 
appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
vessel known as hopper barge E-15 (North Carolina State official number 
264959).
                                 <all>
```
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 Access Worldwide Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shawkat Raslan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    SHAWKAT RASLAN                                                                                                
|Shawkat Raslan Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) May 5, 2004
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA, Small Business, Advance Autonomous Metal 3D Printing in Space","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"cBR6zHVKaK\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/nasa-small-business-advance-autonomous-metal-3d-printing-in-space\/\">NASA, Small Business, Advance Autonomous Metal 3D Printing in Space<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/nasa-small-business-advance-autonomous-metal-3d-printing-in-space\/embed\/#?secret=cBR6zHVKaK\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA, Small Business, Advance Autonomous Metal 3D Printing in Space” — NASA\" data-secret=\"cBR6zHVKaK\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/jsc2006e20012.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":398}
#### BARBER v. DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION et al.

No. 4647.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

June 14, 1947.

Trusty & Pugh and Guy W. Green, all of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Morrison, Nugent, Berger, Hecker & Buck, Henry A. Buck and W. H. Hoffstot, all of Kansas City, Mo., for defendants.

REEVES, District Judge.

The question for decision in this case is whether a local defendant was joined for the fraudulent purpose of preventing removal to this court. The suit was originally filed on September 4, 1945. The amount then sued for was $3,000, and the corporate nonresident defendant alone was named as a party defendant. The deposition of the plaintiff was taken on September 12, 1946, and the deposition of the resident defendant was taken on September 26, 1946.

The amended petition wherein the resident defendant was joined and the amount in controversy was raised to $10,000 was filed on February 12, 1947. Prior to that time, by a stipulation of counsel, the case had been set for trial in a state court. In the amended complaint amplified averments were made with respect to the acts and claimed culpability of the resident defendant.

By its petition for removal the corporate defendant challenges the truth of the aver-ments with respect to the resident defendant and challenges the good faith of plaintiff in joining said defendant. Before the filing of the amended complaint, as indicated, the deposition of the plaintiff and the resident defendant had been taken. These depositions in no way support the aver-ments of the amended complaint with respect to the participation of the resident defendant in the unfortunate experience of the plaintiff wherein he apparently was badly injured. On the contrary, the testimony of both the plaintiff and the resident defendant would indicate that the aver-ments of the complaint were untrue.in so far as they relate to the resident defendant, save only that in a general way he had charge of the elevator, the alleged offend*790ing instrumentality. Moreover, a question of good faith in the joining of the resident defendant is raised by the circumstances that the original petition was filed, as stated, on September 4, 1945 and the amended complaint was not filed until February 12, 1947. In the meantime depositions were taken and an agreed setting had been made for the trial of the case. The depositions disclose nothing that would indicate either greater damages or that the resident defendant was involved than was apparently known at the time the original petition was filed.

 It is the rule that a joinder is fraudulent if the facts alleged in plaintiff’s pleading with reference to resident defendant appear to be so clearly false as to show that no factual basis exists for an honest belief on the part of the plaintiff that there is a joint liability. Leonard v. St. Joseph Lead Co., 8 Cir., 75 F.2d 390; Polito v. Molasky, 8 Cir., 123 F.2d 258. The entire history of this case justifies a conclusion that the plaintiff joined the resident defendant fraudulently and that such joinder was a sham to prevent removal. In view of this conclusion the motion to remand should be and will be overruled.
**Exhibit 21.1**

**LIST      OF SUBSIDIARIES OF OTELCO INC.**

|                                                   |   | **STATE                OR OTHER JURISDICTION** |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|
| **EXACT                NAME OF SUBSIDIARY AS**         |   | **OF                INCORPORATION OR**         |
| **SPECIFIED                IN ITS CHARTER**            |   | **ORGANIZATION**                               |
| Brindlee                Holdings LLC                   |   | Delaware                                       |
| Brindlee                Mountain Telephone Company     |   | Alabama                                        |
| Blountsville                Telephone Company, Inc.    |   | Alabama                                        |
| Hopper                Holding Company, Inc.            |   | Alabama                                        |
| Hopper                Telecommunications Company, Inc. |   | Alabama                                        |
| Imagination,                Inc.                       |   | Missouri                                       |
| Mid-Maine                Communications, Inc.          |   | Delaware                                       |
| Mid-Maine                Telecom, Inc.                 |   | Maine                                          |
| Mid-Maine                TelPlus                       |   | Maine                                          |
| Mid-Missouri                Telephone Corp.            |   | Missouri                                       |
| Mid-Missouri                Holding Corp.              |   | Delaware                                       |
| Otelco                Telecommunications LLC           |   | Delaware                                       |
| Otelco                Telephone LLC                    |   | Delaware                                       |
| Page                & Kiser Communications, Inc.   |   | Alabama                                        |

----