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

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Katharine S. Hayden

v. : Criminal No. 10-835 (KSH)

RICKY BOYD : ORDER

These matters having come before the Court upon the motions in limine of the United 

States, by Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney (Lee M. Cortes, Jr., Assistant United States 

Attorney, appearing), for an Order to Limit the Cross-Examination of Detectives Emanuel 

Pereira and Juan Ramos of the Newark Police Department and for an Order to Admit Evidence 

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 609(a)(1), and the motion in limine of 

defendant Ricky Boyd, (Patrick McMahon, Esq., appearing) for an Order to Compel the 

Disclosure of the Grand Jury Testimony of Joseph Leon Alexander, and the Court having 

presided over these motions at a hearing conducted on November 21, 2011, and consistent with 

the Court’s opinion that was delivered orally to the parties on November 21, 2011, 

IT IS, on this 22nd day of November, 2011,

ORDERED that the motion in limine of the United States to Limit the Cross-Examination 

of Detectives Emanuel Pereira and Juan Ramos is hereby GRANTED; and it is further 

ORDERED that the motion in limine of the United States to Admit Evidence Pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 609(a)(1) is hereby GRANTED; and it is further 

ORDERED that the motion in limine of defendant RICKY BOYD to Compel the 

Disclosure of the Grand Jury Testimony of Joseph Leon Alexander is hereby GRANTED in part 

and DENIED in part; and it is further
ORDERED that the United States disclose to defendant RICKY BOYD those portions of 

the Grand Jury Testimony of Joseph Leon Alexander that were set forth by the Court at the 

November 21, 2011 hearing.

_/s/ Katharine S. Hayden

KATHARINE S. HAYDEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
0 .: * -./ 

. . . 

OFFICE OF THE Al-l-ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AU8lYN 

Bonomblo K. Lsr O'Du~ial 

Oorunor of Tons 

Aurtln, Toxso 

Dorr Cotrrnor O*Danirl 

lou rrpurrt our 

bo rll~blr to urn. 

Authorlt~ artor a 

n& thr tomlnat1on 

moabsrrhlp tith 

bo oll~blo ter 

.uul-lng tho pnl l p ~o lntwnt J 

mo tor whatsootu.” 

at. mo mI0r o , 

rt ( aa Ulrootor, 
t&at tum 08 u8ed in thm Aot rroatlng thlr rutboAt)-. Furthermore, r, do not wimh our Opinion Ho. 0-lT83 to km oonoldued 

a# baring parred upon that quortion. . 

m(RH, ma 18, la40 

(I) @oral6 C. Yann 

ATTORHBTOlKNBlUL MTSXX 

Toum vary truly 

hTToFlnsTmmRALOTnxA~ 

AFPROVXD 0PmI0H c-t 

By B.U.B. Chalnrn
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-1361

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Northern * District of Iowa. Prince Columbus Wood, Jr., also * known as Cody Hughes, also known * [UNPUBLISHED] as Paul Broadway, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 29, 2000 Filed: September 6, 2000

___________ Before HANSEN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Prince Columbus Wood, Jr. pleaded guilty to selling and receiving stolen vehicles, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment to run consecutively to an unexpired term

of imprisonment on an earlier federal sentence. Counsel filed a brief and moved to withdraw under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Wood filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.-2-

Wood argues the district court improperly refused to depart downward based on Woo d's age and health, and by finding losses in excess of $200,000. We decline to review Wood's arguments, however, because the district court's decision not to depart downward was discretionary, see UnitedStates v. Correa , 167 F.3d 414, 417 (8th Cir. 1999), and Wood specifically withdrew his objection to the court's amount-of-lossfinding at sentencing, see UnitedStates v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993); United States v. Tulk , 171 F.3d 596, 600 (8th Cir. 1999); UnitedStates v. Gutierrez , 130 F.3d 330, 332 (8th Cir. 1997).
Wood also argues the district court improperly failed to credit proceeds from a forfeiture sale of Wood's property against the loss calculation or the restitution order, and the district court judge was biased because the judge allegedly commutes to chambers in an airplane flown by the Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted Wood. We note Wood offers no proof in support of his allegation. We also reject these arguments. See UnitedStates v. Jenkins , 141 F.3d 850, 852 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (judicial bias); UnitedStates v. Emerson , 128 F.3d 557, 566-67 (7th Cir. 1997) (district court not required to offset restitution with proceeds from forfeiture of defendant's property). Finally, Wood points to a misstatement in counsel's Anders brief: that Wood's sentence on the stolen property charges will "be followed by" his unexpired term of im prisonment. Counsel's misstatement is irrelevant, however, because the district court correctly described the order of the two prison terms at the sentencing hearing and in its written judgment.
We find no other nonfrivolous issues, see Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and thus grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Accordingly, we affirm.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Imperiali, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the year ended August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel Imperato,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/Daniel
      ImperatoDaniel
      ImperatoPrincipal
      Financial OfficerMay
      14, 2009
32 Occupational Outlook Quarterly • Winter 2010–11

The road to high wages: Transportation occupations

Median wages of workers in selected transportation occupations, May 2009

What’s a good route to a career with high wages? Data 

from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics suggest that 

working in some transportation occupations might help 

you reach that destination.

The chart shows selected transportation occupations 

in which workers earned median annual wages that were 

higher than those earned by 75 percent of all workers in 

May 2009. The median annual wage—the point at which 

half of all workers in an occupation earned more than 

this amount and half earned less—was $33,190 in May 

2009 for workers across all occupations.

College was not the most significant source of education and training for workers in most of the occupations 

in the chart. But all of the occupations required some 

type of formal training, work experience, or a combination of the two. Such requirements reflect the fact that 

workers in these occupations have complex job duties 

and are often responsible for travelers’ safety.

Prospects are good for these selected occupations. 

Most of them are expected to have faster than average 

employment growth over the 2008–18 decade. Employment growth for air traffic controllers, airline pilots, and 

rail conductors is expected to be about average over the 

same decade.

Wage data in the chart are from the BLS Occupational Employment Statistics program (online, see 

www.bls.gov/oes). Data on education and training and 

projected job growth come from the BLS Employment 

Projections Program (www.bls.gov/emp). To learn more 

about these occupations, including detailed descriptions 

of their job duties, required education and training, and 

more, consult the BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook, 

available in most libraries and online at 

www.bls.gov/ooh.

$109,850

$106,240

$65,840

$64,240

$63,630

$56,390

$56,290

$53,940

Air traffic controllers

Airline pilots, copilots,

and flight engineers

Commercial pilots

Captains, mates, and

pilots of water vessels

Ship engineers

Subway and streetcar

operators

Transportaon inspectors

Railroad conductors

and yardmasters

Work experience in a related occupaon

Work experience in a related occupaon

Work experience in a related occupaon

Postsecondary vocaonal award

Bachelor’s degree

Workers’ most significant source of

educaon and training

Long-term on-the-job training

Median for all occupaons = $33,190

Moderate-term on-the-job training

Moderate-term on-the-job training

Projected 2008–18 employment growth as fast as average.

Projected 2008–18 employment growth faster than average.
#### Shultys *against*Owens.

NEW-YORK,

October 1817.

Where an Issue to the country is tiered, amn. Jjy l^ea "t®, ¡í¿so days.1TM1-r^bptart7 hs“¡k“ merely ^'’de!r?ai’.r ioi!'must he done, *bona*J&ie, for the pur-ring6. °£ demur* •

*MARCY,*for the defendant, moved to set aside the inquest / 7 * taken in this cause for irregularity, on an affidavit of merits, He read an affidavit, also, stating that the replication in the cause, tendering an issue to the country, was served on the defendant’s attorney, on the 13th of *August*last, and a notice of trial for the *Montgomery*circuit, to be held on the first day of *September,*was served *at the same time.*The defendant not appearing, an inquest was taken by default, on the first day of .r the Circuit#

It appeared that a *similiter*was added to the replication when it was served, and that the cause was noticed for trial as an inquest.

Johnson, contra.

*Per Curiam.*

We decided, at the last term, that the plaintiff, after an issue is tendered to the country, and a joinder, is not obliged to wait 20 days, before giving notice of trial, to see whether the defendant will demur or not; but he may immediately notice the cause for trial, at the peril, however, of the defendant’s putting in a demurrer, *bona fide,*within the 20 days. The practice of striking out the *similiter,*merely for delay, or to avoid a circuit, is a fraud on the IXth Rule of *April*term, 1796. The intention of that rule was merely to give the party an opportunity of demurring to the plea, for which purpose only ■ he may, *bona fide,*strike out the *similiter.*The plaintiff was regular; but as there is an affidavit of merits, we grant the rule, to set aside the default, on payment of all the costs.

Rule granted.
| 1. | Such      Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010,      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 such Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the three      months ended March 31, 2010, fairly represents in all material respects,      the financial condition and results of operations of Northeast Automotive      Holdings, Inc. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      May 18 , 2010                                                         |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                             |   |
| Northeast      Automotive Holdings,  Inc.                              |
|                                                                             |   |
| By:                                                                         | /s/ William      Solko |
| William      Solko, Chief Executive Officer and Principal      AccountingOfficer |

----
#### In the Matter of Steven Lashway, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

[976 NYS2d 675]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), entered January 30, 2013 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violent conduct, interference with employees, refusing a direct order and movement violations. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal. The Attorney General has informed this Court that, during the pendency of this appeal, the determination was administratively reversed and records containing references to the superintendent’s hearing were to be expunged. Accordingly, petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled and this appeal has been rendered moot *(see Matter of Sowell v Fischer,*108 AD3d 962, 963 [2013], *appeal dismissed*22 NY3d 913 [2013], *lv denied*22 NY3d 855 [2013]; *Matter of Townes v Fischer,*98 AD3d 760, 761 [2012]).

Lahtinen, J.E, Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
Couse Ho, C-322-00%67/- 53244 e-2,
Les ella Heslcins -
Sui duds

\8 201-10
Yragin Person ce .

Courer OF CErMENAL Agpaacs oe-TEKAS
PD- Geox 1230€ Caper Staxrou
Austr TEXAS PQA

Cleric cb Conk Corinne Appets

hoposed | ind is ch Lewd
SRE. Stealers Propesed Merrion Findings ot Fat ant Conclusions

S fale! mnorirchae
i C ne State's Proposed memer
Pew Wlinse Sul unis Re pia Persona Seats Copies of me i" ae
weet : \ Purse Qa Meant rhe vast tewerd
Pings nee of God Conchusions & larg fa Met We mey } ai
~ ie
Wis Claim of Me duct

Trrecene .

ps wd Copy
D Yo Hating Sui duns Stee of inetpny he Seets wih Cheon Wands * 7
we WCLins- SUA Sues ' ~ :
Ure Skee Loni} of YVabeas Corpus feck. {07 Rrocedmy dealer Koo (le Axes) : ve
Orde- of dudy Seott Wisch of Gy Sl2@ns Sundial Dishich Gourd Tarren a sy
TRtex .

ExECuteo Ths gn Dez

, thks ALY
of aay (Acts,

3 PLAS Preps Persia
Lhe ablha Houskins ai Sud freg

RECEIVED Iw
COURT CF CRitaL APPEALS

JUL 17 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk
Exhibit 32.2   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 Success Exploration & Resources, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.   Dated: January 21, 2014 By:  /s/ Raymond Talarico  Raymond Talarico, interim Chief Financial Officer and Director (Principal Financial Officer)    1
ACCEPTED04-15-00125-CRFOURTH COURT OF APPEALSSAN ANTONIO, TEXAS7/20/2015 3:41:05 PMKEITH HOTTLECLERK
# table80_q10.2_state
EXHIBIT 24


                              POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                 (Form 10-K)




     The undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Robert S. Gregg his true
and lawful attorney and agent, with full power of substitution and 
resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all 
capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended 
December 30, 1995 and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, 
with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with 
the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting until each attorney and
agent full power and authority to do any and all acts and things necessary or
advisable to be done, as fully and to all intents and purposes as he might 
or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that the attorney 
and agent or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be 
done by virtue hereof.


                                Dated:   March 27, 1996



                                DAVID R. HATHAWAY

                                ROBERT C. MATHIS

                                MICHAEL S. SCOTT MORTON

                                RICHARD C. PALERMO

                                ROBB WILMOT
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Middle Kingdom Alliance Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q, for the three
month period ended June 30, 2009, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Fred A. Brasch, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the period certified.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    Fred A. Brasch  
|Fred A. Brasch         
|Chief Financial Officer

August 14, 2009
Order entered May 22 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00019
- CR VICTORIA STUART, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. F
- 1062404
- I



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeal. On April 22, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding wh y the reporter’s record has not been filed. We ADOPT the trial court’s findings that: (1) appellant received a probate d sentence; (2) trial counsel appeared at the hearing on this Court’s order; (3) counsel stated he informed appellant by email, letter, and telephone calls of the hearing; (4) appellant acknowledged the emails, but she did not appear at the hearing; and (5 ) trial counsel has no information regarding appellant’s indigence status. We note that appellant has not communicated with this Court regarding the appeal. Based on the trial court’s findings and appellant’s failure to communicate with this Court regard ing the appeal, we conclude appellant has abandoned her appeal.We ORDER the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record and briefs as of the date

of this order to a panel consisting of Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c), 38.8(b).

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. KIM ALAN COUSINS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 11-50260 D.C. No. 3:10-cr-01931-MMA-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 7, 2012 ** Pasadena, California Before: FARRIS, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Defendant Kim Alan Cousins appeals hi s conviction, following a bench trial. Specifically, Cousins argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found in his home pursuant to a search warrant. We affirm. 

# FILED
MAR 28 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Because the parties are familiar with the f actual and legal history of the case, we need not recount it here. The probable cause determination for a search warrant is based on the “totality of circumstances” test, which requires only a “fair probability” that the sought-after evidence is locat ed in a particular place. United States v. Gourde , 440 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citing Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 246 (1983)). “Fair probability” does not require“certainty or even a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. “[A] magistrate judge is only required to answer the commonsense, practical question whether there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence is located in a particular place before issuing a search warrant.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). On review, “the magistrate judge’s determination should be paid great deference.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Cousins argues that no probable cause existed to support the warrant issued for the search of his home because the information provided to the magistrate judge was tenuous, speculative, and stale. “T he test for judging the timeliness of a search warrant is whether there is suffici ent basis to believe, based on a continuing pattern or other good reasons, that the items to be seized are still on the premises.” United States v. Gann , 732 F.2d 714, 722 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing United States v. Collins , 559 F.2d 561, 564 (9th Cir. 1977)). “T he mere lapse of substantial3 amounts of time is not controlling in a question of staleness.” United States v. Dozier , 844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. Foster , 711 F.2d 871, 878 (9th Cir. 1983)). In light of the particular facts of the case and the nature of the criminal activity and property sought, the district court did not err in concluding that the information include d in the affidavit provided “a fair probability” that evidence could be found atCousins’ residence at the time the warrant was issued. See, e.g. , Gourde , 440 F.3d at 1071; United States v. Lacy , 119 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 1997); United States v. Rabe , 848 F.2d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 1988). AFFIRMED.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Carrie Mae Abiola, * From the 372nd District Court

of Tarrant County,

Trial Court No. 1312082D.

Vs. No. 11-13-00216-CR * July 23, 2015

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

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

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

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.