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

[822 NYS2d 504]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J), rendered September 4, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing to concurrent terms of 10 years and 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to call an expert who would testify about the general effects of crack cocaine use *(see People v Lee,*96 NY2d 157, 162 [2001]; *People v Cronin,*60 NY2d 430 [1983]), as defendant failed to lay an adequate foundation for the testimony *(see People v Williams,*6 NY2d 18, 23 [1959], *cert denied*361 US 920 [1959]; *People v Billups,*132 AD2d 612, 613 [1987], *lv denied*70 NY2d 873 [1987]). There was insufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that the victim was under the influence of drugs at the time of the incident, and the proposed testimony would have been speculative and misleading *(see People v Frazier,*233 AD2d 896, 897 [1996]; *People v Walker,*223 AD2d 414 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 887 [1996]). Accordingly, there was no violation of defendant’s right to present a defense *(see Crane v Kentucky,*476 US 683, 689-690 [1986]).

During deliberations, defendant asserted that a juror was grossly unqualified to serve, and, after refusing to consent to replacement of the juror by an alternate, moved for a mistrial. After a probing inquiry, the court properly determined that the juror was not grossly unqualified, and properly denied the mistrial motion *(see*CPL 270.35 [1]; *People v Buford,*69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]). Despite the juror’s initial concern for his safety should there be a guilty verdict, he assured the court that he *386could render an impartial verdict. The court was in the best position to assess the juror’s responses, and its determination that he could render an impartial verdict is supported by the record *(see People v Harris,*99 NY2d 202, 212-213 [2002]; *People v Santiago,*255 AD2d 63, 67-68 [1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 829 [1999]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.
Order entered April 17, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01156-CV

No. 05-18-01350-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.E.C., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-97-20578

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s April 16, 2019 motion for an extension of time to file her 

briefs on the merits in these two appeals. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to May

14, 2019.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
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

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): National Center for Construction Safety and Health, Request for Application (RFA) 09-001, Initial Review

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

*Times and Dates:*

6 p.m.-7 p.m., July 27, 2009 (Closed).

9 a.m.-5 p.m., July 28, 2009 (Closed).

9 a.m.-5 p.m., July 29, 2009 (Closed).

*Place:*                         Sheraton Station Square, 300 W. Station Square Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15129, Telephone: (412) 261-2000.                    

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                    

*Matters to be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “National Center for Construction Safety and Health, RFA 09-001.”                    

*Contact Person for More Information:*                         George Bockosh, Scientific Review Administrator, Office Of Extramural Programs, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop P05, Atlanta Georgia 30333; Telephone: (412) 352-5181;                         *GBockosh@cdc.gov.*

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Dated: June 3, 2009.

Lorenzo Falgiano,

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E9-13561 Filed 6-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1430

ANDREW MIIRO,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A74-642-948)

Submitted: November 16, 2005 Decided: December 6, 2005

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fatai A. Suleman, AMOROW & KUM, P.A., Takoma Park, Maryland, for

Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas

E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, John D. Williams, OFFICE OF

IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Miiro, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)

denying as untimely his motion to reopen immigration proceedings.

We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the

Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.

See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we

deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

See In re: Miiro, No. A74-642-948 (B.I.A. Mar. 24, 2005). 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.

PETITION DENIED
No. 644.

#### Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, *v.*Cement Investors, Inc.

February 9, 1942.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of *803Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied. *Solicitor General Fahy*for petitioner.

*Messrs. John L. J. Hart*and *James B. Grant*for respondent.
Exhibit 12(b)

                          Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
         Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and
  Ratios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                               1997      1998      1999      2000      2001
<S>                                                           <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Fixed charges, as defined:
  Total Interest charges                                      $180,073  $178,220  $153,034  $158,949  $174,368
  Interest applicable to rentals                                15,747    16,927    16,451    18,307    18,520
                                                              ------------------------------------------------

Total fixed charges, as defined                                195,820   195,147   169,485   177,256   192,888

Preferred dividends, as defined (a)                             30,028    32,031    29,355    15,742    13,017
                                                              ------------------------------------------------
Combined fixed charges and preferred dividends, as defined    $225,848  $227,178  $198,840  $192,998  $205,905
                                                              ================================================
Earnings as defined:

Income (loss) from continuing operations before
extraordinary items and
  the cumulative effect of accounting changes                  $59,976   $46,393  $125,000  $180,343  $179,444
  Add:
    Income Taxes                                                22,402    31,773    75,165   103,603    82,038
    Fixed charges as above                                     195,820   195,147   169,485   177,256   192,888
                                                              ------------------------------------------------

Total earnings, as defined (b)                                $278,198  $273,313  $369,650  $461,202  $454,370
                                                              ================================================
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined                    1.42      1.40      2.18      2.60      2.36
                                                              ================================================
Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and
 preferred dividends, as defined                                  1.23      1.20      1.86      2.39      2.21
                                                              ================================================
</TABLE>

(a) "Preferred dividends," as defined by SEC regulation S-K
    are computed by dividing the preferred dividend
    requirement by one hundred percent (100%) minus the
    income tax rate.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1 D 2 0 23

- 1335

_____________________________

K ENDRICK R I S CHARD J OHNSON

,

Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. James M. Colaw , Judge

.

June 26, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

. Appellant is warned that any future filings that this court determines to be frivolous may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against any further pro se filings in this court and a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures as provided in section 944.279, Florida Statutes (20 23 ) (providing that “[a] pri soner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous or malicious suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal” is subject to disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections).

R OWE

, B ILBREY

, and K ELSEY

, JJ., concur.2 ______ _______________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or

9.331

.

_____________________________

Kendrick Ri s chard Johnson, pro se

, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Choices Entertainment Corporation and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         515,556
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               641,589
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 810,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,318,908
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       220,044
<OTHER-SE>                                   (790,963)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   810,989
<SALES>                                      2,115,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,115,622
<CGS>                                          320,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  320,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,331,243
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,490
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (252,632)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (303,785)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   755,628
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                        FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE COMPANY
                       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 Fortis Benefits Insurance
Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Ranell Jacobson, Treasurer (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, based on my knowledge:

      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 results of operations
            of the Company.

Date: November 12, 2004

                                      /s/ Ranell Jacobson
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Ranell Jacobson
                                      Treasurer
                                      (Chief Financial Officer)
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 Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans will be held on February 19-20, 2009, in room 730, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day. The meeting is open to the public. 

The purpose of the Committee is to provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the policies, organizational structures, and services of the Department in assisting homeless veterans. The Committee shall assemble and review information relating to the needs of homeless veterans and provide advice on the most appropriate means of offering assistance to homeless veterans. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities. 

The agenda will include briefings from VA and other officials regarding services for homeless veterans. The Committee will also begin final preparation of its upcoming annual report and recommendations to the Secretary. 

Those wishing to attend the meeting should contact Mr. Pete Dougherty, Department of Veterans Affairs, at (202) 461-7401. No time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, the Committee will accept written comments from interested parties on issues affecting homeless veterans. Such comments should be referred to the Committee at the following address: Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, Homeless Veterans Programs Office (075D), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. 

Dated: January 8, 2009. 

By direction of the Secretary:

E. Philip Riggin, 

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-1373 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
#### In the Matter of: LOTHIAN OIL INCORPORATED, Debtor. FCR Guardian Trust; MYG Trust; Herzberg Family Trust; YYSD Trust; Feinberg Family Trust; Spitzer Family Trust; Moses Family Trust; Brenda Crayk; Hirshberg Family Trust; Edmond Balakhane JG Trust; Albert Balakhane; S. Poliak Audiological P.C. Profit Sharing Plan, Appellants v. Lothian Oil, Inc., Jointly Administered Cases Lothian Oil (USA), Incorporated, Lothian Oil Texas I, Incorporated, Lothian Oil Texas II, Incorporated, Lothian Oil Investments I, Incorporated, Lothian Oil Investments II, Incorporated, Lead I JVGP, Incorporated, Appellee.

No. 10-50764

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 14, 2011.

Jessica Mara Sokol, Esq., Sokol Law Group, New York, NY, for Appellants.

Mark R. Trachtenberg, Blaine Bates, Charles A. Beckham, Jr., Haynes & Boone, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Appellee.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

On this appeal, Appellants challenge the bankruptcy court’s entry of summary judgment ordering pro rata distribution of the funds of the debtor, Lothian Oil, Inc. (“Lothian”), to holders of Lothian’s preferred stock. Appellants make this challenge despite the fact that they took a contrary position in the bankruptcy court when they urged the court to make the pro rata distribution at the summary judgment hearing. Appellants apparently hired a different attorney to appeal the summary judgment entered by the bankruptcy court. The district court, in a straightforward order, affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order and rejected replacement counsel’s argument that Appellants’ other attorney was not authorized to argue in favor of the proposed distribution. The record contains no support for replacement counsel’s contention. We agree with the district court that this argument is unsupported and without merit. We also agree with the district court that Appellants are barred on appeal by the doctrine of judicial estoppel from making arguments contrary to the position they took during the summary judgment proceedings in the bankruptcy court.

*737For these reasons and the reasons assigned by the district court, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-3806, 33-71856, 33-90728, 33-76542, and 33-90366)
pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
1992 EPRO Stock Option Plan, and the EPRO Incentive Stock Option Plan of
Credence Systems Corporation of our report dated December 2, 1996, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Credence Systems
Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended October
31, 1996.


                                         /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP



San Jose, California
January 24, 1997