alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Christopher Allen PHIPPS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-4401.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2009.

Decided: May 26, 2009.

L. Richard Walker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martins-burg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Following his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person, Christopher Allen Phipps appeals. He contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to dismiss the unlawful possession of ammu*231nition charge, which he asserts resulted from prosecutorial vindictiveness after he asserted his right to a proper grand jury-proceeding. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find no abuse of discretion by the district court. *United States v. Fiel,*35 F.3d 997, 1007 (4th Cir.1994); *see United States v. Armstrong,*517 U.S. 456, 464, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996). We therefore affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss for the reasons stated by the district court, and thus affirm Phipps’ conviction and sentence. *See United States v. Phipps,*No. 3:04-cr-00038-JPB-DJJ-1 (N.D.W.Va. Nov. 5, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Derrick *v.*Pierce.

The record of a contract of conditional sale of personalty delivered to the purchaser, the instrument being attested by one witness but no probate being made to prepare it for record, is without effect, and a judgment against the conditional purchaser after-wards rendered, even upon an antecedent debt, will bind the property; nor will a rescission of such contract of sale by the parties thereto, after the judgment lien attached, affect the lien. Code, 21955(a); *Cohen*v. *Candler,*79 *Ga.*427. *Judgment affirmed.*

April 2, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Levy and claim. Before Judge Hunt. Henry superior court. April term, 1893.

An execution in favor of Pierce against Jones was-levied upon a mule, to which a claim was interposed *467by Derrick. The property was found subject. Derrick moved for a new trial, and the motion was overruled. The motion alleged, in addition to the general grounds, that the court erred in charging: “If the claimant sold the mule to defendant and delivered it to defendant under a contract in writing, which was recorded within thirty days, but -which contract was not executed in the presence of and attested by or approved before a notary public or justice of any court in this State or clerk of the superior court, it would be no notice to plaintiff although it was so recorded; and if plaintiff sued his debt after defendant came in possession of such mule, and obtained a judgment, it would be a lien from the date of the judgment, and the mule would be subject to the *fi. fa.*levied. If the defendant returned the mule to the claimant after the judgment was obtained and they, defendant and claimant, agreed on a cancellation of their trade, this would' not defeat the lien of plaintiff’s judgment, if it is true that the contract of sale was not properly executed and recorded in manner as charged in foregoing part of my charge.”

*W.*A. Brown, for plaintiff in error.

E. J. Reagan, *contra.*

•Also, that the court erred in not charging, as requested by claimant: “If you find that the debt which was the foundation of the judgment on which they?, *fa.*was issued, was created and became due before the purchase of the property by the defendant in *fi. fa.,*then you should find the property not subject, because no lien attached to said property from said judgment as against the claimant holding a written contract of sale containing reservation of title, although said contract was defectively executed and recorded.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
INTER-TEL,  INCORPORATED  AND  SUBSIDIARIES  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 30, 1998  RESTATED FOR A POOLING WITH "ITS" DURING THE SECOND
QUARTER  ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           91157
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    38224
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3936
<INVENTORY>                                      21632
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                163312
<PP&E>                                           42886
<DEPRECIATION>                                   21363
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  204685
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            36783
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         99858
<OTHER-SE>                                       51192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    204685
<SALES>                                          65865
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 65865
<CGS>                                            33994
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    33994
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9177
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3820
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5357
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5357
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.2







Certificate of Chief
Financial Officer


Section 1350
Certification








In connection with the annual report of
Applied Nanotech Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas P, Baker, the Chief Financial 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 Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2. The information contained in this
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and
results of operations of the Company.











Date:     March
      2, 2009
            /s/ Douglas P.
      BakerDouglas
      P. BakerChief
      Financial Officer
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20892

andrew.uhlman@nih.gov

## Summary

Andrew recently received his M.S. in Cancer Systems Biology from Georgetown University. He also has a B.S. in Biology from Denison University and has expertise in both bioinformatics and bench lab techniques and their relation to basic, translational, and clinical research.

## Research Statement

Analyze ChIP-Seq data utilizing the high performance computing systems Biowulf and Helix. Developing a web based application using Shiny that will allow users to analyze multiple gene lists simultaneously via the gene enrichment tool Enrichr.

## Education

                          - M.S. in Cancer Systems Biology, Georgetown University
                          - B.S. in Biology, Denison University

## Experience

                          - Postbaccalaureate Research Fellow, NIH

October 2022

Back to Top
The District Court of the 18th Judicial District. County of Gallatin.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. VICTORIA PEHRINGER, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-07-44A DECISION

On February 11,2009, the defendant was sentenced to ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Theft of Property by Embezzlement, Common Scheme, a felony. The Court recommends that the Defendant be required to complete the Passages Treatment Program and the Re-Entry Program as a condition of parole.

On October 8,2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Richard Phillips. The state was represented by Martin Lambert.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was fiirther advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 8th day of October, 2010.

DATED this 21st day of October, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [NRC-2008-0122] 

# AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

# ACTION:

Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, availability; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects a notice appearing in the                         **Federal Register**                         on May 18, 2009 (74 FR 23220), concerning the issuance of Draft Regulatory Guide 1237. This action is necessary to correct the spelling of the contact's first name, e-mail address and the comment receipt date.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stephen F. LaVie, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-1081 or e-mail to                         *Steve.LaVie@nrc.gov*.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On page 23220, in the third column, under                     **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                    , the spelling of the first name of the contact is changed from “Steven” to read “Stephen.” The e-mail address is changed from “                    *Steven.LaVie@nrc.gov*                    ” to read “                    *Steve.LaVie@nrc.gov*.”                 

                    On page 23221, in the first column, third full paragraph, the spelling of the first name of the contact is changed from “Steven” to read “Stephen.” The e-mail address is changed from “                    *Steven.LaVie@nrc.gov*                    ” to read “                    *Steve.LaVie@nrc.gov*.”                 

On page 23221, in the first column, fourth full paragraph, the comment receipt date is changed from “September 1, 2009” to read “August 3, 2009.” 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of May, 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

R. A. Jervey, 

Acting Chief, Regulatory Guide Development Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. 

 [FR Doc. E9-12102 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1824

_____________________________

CONSTANCE BUCHANAN, as legal 

guardian of John Doe 3, a

fictitious name for a minor,

Appellant,

v.

CROSSROADS UNITED 

METHODIST CHURCH, INC., a 

Florida Non-Profit Corporation,

CAMPUS CRUSADE FOR CHRIST,

INC., and CHRISTOPHER ROBERT 

BACCA,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Robert M. Dees, Judge.

June 20, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal 

and Appellant’s Response in Opposition, the Court has 

determined that the appeal must be dismissed because the 

“Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Partial Final Judgment 

as to Count VIII” is not an appealable partial final judgment. See

Jensen v. Whetstine, 985 So. 2d 1218, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) 
2

(“An order is not an appealable partial final order where there is 

a factual overlap between the pending claims and the claims 

resolved by the order.”) Cf. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k). “An appeal 

from an order dismissing a count of a complaint, where other 

counts against the same parties remain, is authorized only when 

the dismissed count arises from a separate and distinct 

transaction independent of the other pending, pleaded claims.” 

Biasetti v. Palm Beach Blood Bank, Inc., 654 So. 2d 237, 238 (Fla. 

4th DCA 1995); see also Harrison v. J.P.A. Enters., LLC, 51 So. 

3d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Appellant’s complaint 

includes two pending counts alleging claims against the same 

defendant for damages stemming from the same conduct as 

Count VIII. Therefore, the claims are interrelated and the order 

on Count VIII is not independently appealable as a partial final 

judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 

9.110(k). 

The appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

ROWE, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Gerald B. Stewart, Jacksonville; Willie J. Walker of The Walker 

Law Offices, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Michael R. D'Lugo of Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford, P.A., 

Orlando, for Appellee Campus Crusade for Christ.

No appearance for Appellees Crossroads United Methodist 

Church or Christopher Robert Bacca.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Christina Victoria Cruz, * From the 29th District Court

 of Palo Pinto County

Trial Court No. 16065B.

Vs. No. 11-18-00094-CR * November 15, 2018

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Order filed, September 17, 2015

.

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The



## First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01

- 15

- 00732

- CV

MARINA PRESLEY , Appellant

V.

N.V. MASUREEL VEREDELING , Appellee

On Ap peal from the 133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case 2006

- 46323B



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due September 8, 2015

. See Tex. R. App. P.

35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the rec ord. The

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed

timely, we issue the following order.

We order Darlene Stein , the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file the record

in this appeal , if any, with in 20 days of the date of this order

.

/s/ Terry JenningsActing individually
EX-35.3
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

GSAA 2007-3

I, Michael Gathright, an authorized officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
(the "Servicer"), certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including
January 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (or applicable portion
thereof) and of the Servicer's performance under the applicable servicing
agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.


Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Agreement.

Date: February 29, 2008
/s/ Michael Gathright
Michael Gathright
Senior Vice President, Loan Administration
#### In the Matter of Delano Brown, Appellant, v New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

Submitted November 30, 2009;

decided January 12, 2010

Reported below, 2009 NY Slip Op 74919ÍU).

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*13 NY3d 770 (2009)].
[937 NE2d 79, 910 NYS2d 415]

#### Wanderlei Gasques et al., Appellants, v State of New York, Respondent.

Argued September 15, 2010;

decided October 21, 2010

*870APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Breakstone Law Firm, P.C.,*Bellmore *(Jay L.T. Breakstone*of counsel), and *Herbert William Fischman, P.C.,*New York City *(Herbert William Fischman*of counsel), for appellants.

*Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff,*New York City *(Michael J. Lenoff*and *B. Jennifer Jaffee*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

Claimant Wanderlei Gasques was injured while repainting the inside of a leg of the Kosciuszko Bridge, using a “spider scaffold.” His hand was injured when it became caught between the scaffold and the leg of the bridge, while the scaffold was ascending.

With respect to claimants’ Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, the parties agree that Gasques’ hand was crushed because the scaffold continued to move, under the impetus of one of its motors, while his hand was trapped between an external motor control on the scaffold and the steel of the bridge. This injury was not the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to an object or person *(see Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc.,*13 NY3d 599, 604 [2009]; *Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494, 500-501 [1993]). Therefore claimants’ Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was properly dismissed.

Claimants’ Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action was also properly dismissed because it is based solely on 12 NYCRR 23-1.5 (c) (1), which requires that machinery or equipment used by employees be “in good repair and in safe working condition.” It is well established that, in a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, the rule or regulation alleged to have been breached must be a “specific, positive command” *(Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co.,*91 NY2d 343, 349 [1998], quoting *Ross,*81 NY2d at 504). 12 NYCRR 23-1.5 (c) (1) does not set forth a specific standard of conduct and therefore cannot serve as a predicate for a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

*871Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, etc.
EXHIBIT 21

                          LONDON PACIFIC GROUP LIMITED
                     Subsidiary Listing as of March 5, 2001


London Pacific Group Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

  Berkeley International Capital Limited (Guernsey, Channel Islands corporation)

  Berkeley International Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

  London Pacific Advisers Limited (United Kingdom corporation)

  London Pacific Assurance Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

        LPAL Investments Limited (Guernsey, Channel Islands corporation)

  London Pacific Technologies, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

        LP Advisors, Inc. (California corporation)

            Advisory Insurance Services of Texas (Texas corporation)

            London Pacific Advisory Services, Inc.* (California corporation)

            London Pacific Securities, Inc.* (Delaware corporation)

                     LPA Insurance Agency, Inc. (California corporation)

  London Pacific Trust Company Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

        Berkeley (USA) Holdings Limited (California corporation)

            Berkeley Capital Management (California corporation)

            Berkeley Institutional Investment, Inc. (California corporation)

            Berkeley International Capital Corporation (California corporation)

            London Pacific Life & Annuity Company (North Carolina corporation)

                     LPIMC Insurance Marketing Services (California corporation)

            North American Fiduciary Services, Inc. (California corporation)

        London Pacific Secretaries Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)



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

Notes:
(1)  Each indentation reflects another tier of ownership.
(2)  All  subsidiaries are 100% owned and are listed above,  except that several
     subsidiaries  that in the aggregate are insignificant have been omitted.

* Does business under the name "London Pacific Advisors."