alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 99-2348

DAVID T. VEALE,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM HASBROOK, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN FOR THE

TOWN OF GILSUM, NH; JOAN MILLER, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF

SELECTMEN FOR THE TOWN OF GILSUM, NH; THE TOWN OF GILSUM, NH,

Defendants, Appellees,

KENNETH DOOLEY, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN FOR THE

TOWN OF GILSUM, NH,

Defendant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Selya, Circuit Judge,

Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Boudin, Circuit Judge.

David T. Veale on brief pro se.

John T. Alexander and Ransmeier & Spellman on brief for

appellees.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2000

Per Curiam. Appellant David T. Veale appeals from

the district court's grant of summary judgment to appellees,

the Town of Gilsum, New Hampshire, and certain members of

its Board of Selectmen. After carefully reviewing the

parties' briefs and the record, we affirm the judgment of

the district court essentially for the reasons stated in its

Order, dated September 17, 1999. We add that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's

motion for a change of venue. 

Affirmed. See Local Rule 27(c).
#### Joseph LIEGINGER v. WILSON LINES, Inc.

No. 333 of 1955.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. *1,*1956.

*382Cohen, Shein & Ornsteen, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Harrison G. Kildare, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

WELSH, District Judge.

This is libellant’s motion to compel respondent to permit inspection and copying of statements.

In answer to interrogatories propounded by libellant, respondent furnished the names of two persons, both residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (that is, within this District), who were said to have witnessed the accident; respondent also furnished the name of a seaman who was not an eyewitness, but who gave a statement to the effect that he was bumped against a bulkhead when the steamer surged against the dock.1

Libellant objected to respondent’s answers to interrogatories on the ground that they failed to furnish copies of the reports and statements as demanded. This objection was dismissed by the Court in an opinion dated May 18, 1956. D.C., 145 F.Supp. 867. The instant motion to produce under Admiralty Rule 32, 28 U.S.C. was filed by libellant.

The good cause assigned in support of the motion briefly stated is: Libellant is able to prove only the happening of an accident, that is, that the steamer of which he was a crew member struck certain pier pilings at Riverview Beach, New Jersey; he is able to prove that he sustained personal injuries as the result of said accident; but he is unable to prove unseaworthiness; he has conducted an investigation to establish unseaworthiness but has been unsuccessful and he will incur great expense to continue the investigation *2***unless the Court directs that he be permitted to inspect and copy statements of witnesses and of persons having knowledge of the accident.

We are unable under the rules, to offer libellant relief. For, it is observed that the respondent has identified only one statement, that of John Maria, a member of the crew who was not an eye witness to the alleged steamer’s striking of the pier pilings,3- as to which statement the Court is of the opinion the facts assigned for its production do not constitute the good cause required by Admiralty Rule 32.

*383Hence, good cause therefor not having been shown libellant’s motion to produce statements for inspection and copying purposes will be denied.

An order pursuant to the foregoing opinion will be entered.

1

. An accident report filed by the purser of the steamer was identified by respondent in its answers to interrogatories. Said report is not a statement of a witness or a person having knowledge of the accident within the scope of the present motion. Further, the Court is informed that respondent has furnished libellant with a copy of same.

2

. Tbe expense referred to by libellant involves finding and interviewing tbe 54 members of the crew who were listed in respondent’s answers to interrogatories.

3

. Respondent in its answers to interrogatories also identified two eyewitnesses. However, respondent took no statement from them.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7080

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HERBERT A. MIMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CR-92-88, CA-96-387-2)

Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1997

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herbert A. Mims, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Dee Griffith, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Mims, Nos. CR-92-

88; CA-96-387-2 (E.D. Va. June 21, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Kline, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 605]

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was no *Brady*violation *(see Brady v Maryland,*373 US 83 [1963]) in the instant case *(see People v LaValle,*3 NY3d 88, 110 [2004]; *People v Cortijo,*70 NY2d 868, 870 [1987]). Furthermore, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment because of a *Rosario*violation *(see People v Rosario,*9 NY2d 286 [1961]), since there was no showing that the defendant was substantially prejudiced *(see People v Martinez,*71 NY2d 937, 940 [1988]; *People v Best,*186 AD2d 141 [1992]).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of rape in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*
      *66690 AD2d 80 [1982]). Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
* District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting

by designation.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-11029

_____________________

MICHAEL J. MONCRIEF, Etc.; ET AL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

W.A. “TEX” MONCRIEF, JR., Etc.; ET AL,

Defendants.

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

W.A. “TEX” MONCRIEF, JR.; CHARLES B. MONCRIEF; 

RICHARD W. MONCRIEF; MONTEX DRILLING COMPANY,

Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

BILLY W. JARVIS,

Third Party Defendant-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:98-CV-528-E)

_________________________________________________________________

September 9, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, STEWART, Circuit Judge, and ROSENTHAL,

District Judge*.
 

** 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.

2

PER CURIAM:**

The court has jurisdiction over this appeal. See City of

Waco v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 293 U.S. 140

(1934).

On brief and at length at oral argument, appellant claimed

that he was denied the opportunity in the district court to

develop the necessary facts. That argument is devoid of merit. 

The district court’s Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration

and Clarifying Order entered July 7, 1998 specifically advised

that “[i]f a party wishes to assert a right to an evidentiary

hearing or request further discovery on an issue, he may do so by

filing an appropriate written request in a timely fashion.” If,

indeed, appellant failed to take advantage of that invitation,

the problem is of his own making.

The Order of the District Court entered August 3, 1998

denying appellant’s Petition for Certification is affirmed for

substantially the reasons stated in that Order.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 774 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 774

 To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit any operator of 
  an automated teller machine that displays any paid advertising from 
  imposing any fee on a consumer for the use of that machine, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2003

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit any operator of 
  an automated teller machine that displays any paid advertising from 
  imposing any fee on a consumer for the use of that machine, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Access to Money (ATM) Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USER FEES FOR AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINES THAT 
              CARRY PAID ADVERTISING.

      The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating sections 918, 919, 920, and 921 as 
        sections 919, 920, 921, and 922, respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after section 917 the following new 
        section:

``SEC. 918. FEES.

    ``(a) In General.--If an automated teller machine or other cash 
dispensing machine at which a consumer may initiate an electronic fund 
transfer displays any advertising on the screen of such machine, 
whether in the form of a banner or a trailer or in any other format, 
for which the operator of such machine has received any payment or 
other financial benefit, no fee may be imposed on the consumer with 
respect to such transaction by the operator of such machine, whether or 
not the consumer maintains an account with the operator.
    ``(b) Exception for Direct Advertising by the Operator and Public 
Service Announcements.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect 
to--
            ``(1) advertising relating to products or services provided 
        by the operator of an automated teller machine or cash 
        dispensing machine referred to in such subsection or by any 
        affiliate of such operator; or
            ``(2) any public service announcement.''.
                                 <all>
```
## 1999 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-25-1999 

# N ic ini v . M or r a
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ocke t 98-5193

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1999

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1999 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" N ic ini v . M or r a " (1999). 1999 D e cisio n s . P ape r 235. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1999/235

### Filed August 25, 1999

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 98-5193 ANTHONY NICINI, JR., Appellant

v. EDWARD MORRA; NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES; FRANK SYRIS; JOHN DOE(S), a fictitious person or persons; XYZ ENTITY(IES), a fictitious en tity or entities (D.C. Civil No. 95-cv-2303) Before: BECKER, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, SCIRICA, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, McKEE, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
O R D E R A majority of the active judges having voted for re hearing en banc in the above appeal, it is
ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court list the above for rehearing en banc at the convenience of the Court.
BY THE COURT: /s/ Edward R. Becker CHIEF JUDGE DATED: August 25, 1999
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TERRY MOORE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2992

[February 13, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Tim Bailey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 09-21764 CF10A.

Antony P. Ryan, Director, and Paul O'Neil, Assistant Regional Counsel, 

Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, 

for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41203

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH MCGAUGHEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

Case No. 6:04-CR-90-ALL

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant McGaughey pled guilty to possession of child

pornography and was sentenced to twenty-one months imprisonment

subject to his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his

motion to suppress evidence seized from his home. He argues that

the search warrant was supported by a “bare bones” affidavit and

that the Government failed to corroborate two anonymous tips.

The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule

provides that “evidence obtained by officers in objectively

reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible,
2

even though the affidavit on which the warrant was based was

insufficient to establish probable cause.” United States v.

Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1992); see also United

States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405 (1984). The

exception will not apply, however, to a “bare bones” affidavit,

that is, an affidavit “so deficient in demonstrating probable cause

that it renders an officer’s belief [in the existence of probable

cause] completely unreasonable.” United States v. Cisneros,

112 F.3d 1272, 1278 (5th Cir. 1997). Such an affidavit is “based

upon conclusory statements,” and lacks “facts and circumstances

from which a magistrate can independently determine probable

cause.” United States v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456, 1474 n.18 (5th

Cir. 1993).

In this case, the search warrant was not supported by a

“bare bones” affidavit because the citizen informants did not

provide untrustworthy information and the police sufficiently

corroborated the information. The informants independently

provided the police with firsthand knowledge of McGaughey’s name,

address, and place of work, and the police verified the accuracy of

this information before seeking the warrant. Both informants told

similar, detailed stories of McGaughey showing child pornography to

visitors in his home, and finally, the police observed McGaughey’s

association with a known possessor of child pornography at his

home. Therefore, the affidavit supporting the warrant was not

“bare bones,” and we AFFIRM the denial of the motion to suppress.
3

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 36167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17427]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[A(32c)-10-2009]

Foreign-Trade Zone 7--Mayaguez, PR; Scope Clarification Request; 
IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Pharmaceuticals)

    A request for clarification of scope has been submitted to the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
(IPR), operator of IPR's pharmaceuticals manufacturing operations 
within FTZ 7, in Canovanas, Puerto Rico.
    Manufacturing authority for pharmaceuticals and intermediates at 
IPR's FTZ 7 manufacturing facilities was issued on December 14, 2001 
(Board Order 1203, 67 FR 71934, 12/03/2002). IPR listed in the original 
application specific component/product manufacturing which would be 
performed at the outset and also listed categories of components and 
products which might be sourced from abroad in the future. IPR has now 
informed the Board that future production will involve the use of an 
imported ingredient that was not specifically listed as a foreign-
sourced component in the original manufacturing request. The company 
intends to use a foreign-sourced active ingredient, AZD0530 difumarate 
(HTSUS 2934.99.3000--6.5%), in production of difumarate tablets (HTSUS 
3004.90.9115--duty-free).
    The FTZ staff invites the comments of interested parties for 
consideration in its review. Submissions shall be addressed to the 
Board's Executive Secretary at the address listed below. The closing 
period for their receipt is August 21, 2009.
    A copy of the request will be available for public inspection at 
the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 
2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the ``Reading Room'' section of the 
Board's Web site, which is accessible via http://www.trade.gov/ftz. For 
further information, contact Diane Finver at [email protected], 
or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: July 16, 2009.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17427 Filed 7-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00135

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 17th District Court Ta rrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 017

- 291527

- 17

Before Pittman, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### R OBERT 

### W ILLIAM 

### S COTT 

### B AUER 

### ; B RAXTON 

### M INERALS 

### , L.L.C. ; AND 

### B RAXTON 

### M INERALS 

### II, L.L.C. , Appellants

V



### . J OHN 

### B RADLEY 

### A SHBURN AND 

### P OST 

### O AK 

### A PPALACHIA 

### , L.L.C. , Appellees2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert William Scott Bauer ; Braxton Minerals, L.L.C. ; a nd Braxton Minerals I I , L.L.C. attempt to appeal from the trial court’s judgment signed on December 6, 2018

. Appellants filed a motion for new trial on January 7, 2019 , and t he notice of appeal

was therefore due March 6, 2019

. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. However, appellants did
not file the ir notice of appeal un til April 15, 2019

. On April 22, 2019, we notified appellants that we were concerned we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. We cautioned that u nless they or any party des iring to continue the appeal file d with the court, on or before Thursday, May 2, 2019, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we could dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. We have not received a
response. We do not have jurisdiction over an appeal absent a timely filed notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b); Howlett v. Tarrant Cty. , 301 S.W.3d 840,
843 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied) (op. on reh ’ g) (citing Verburgt v.
Dorner , 9 59 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997)). Accordingly, because the notice of appeal was untimely, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
Delivered: May 23, 2019
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 21 PageID: 9014
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 21 PageID: 9015
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 3 of 21 PageID: 9016
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 4 of 21 PageID: 9017
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 5 of 21 PageID: 9018
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 6 of 21 PageID: 9019
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 7 of 21 PageID: 9020
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 8 of 21 PageID: 9021
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 9 of 21 PageID: 9022
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 10 of 21 PageID: 9023
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 11 of 21 PageID: 9024
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 12 of 21 PageID: 9025
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 13 of 21 PageID: 9026
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 14 of 21 PageID: 9027
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 15 of 21 PageID: 9028
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 16 of 21 PageID: 9029
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 17 of 21 PageID: 9030
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 18 of 21 PageID: 9031
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 19 of 21 PageID: 9032
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 20 of 21 PageID: 9033
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 245-1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 21 of 21 PageID: 9034
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 172
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-4 Filed 10/24/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 173