alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed: March 31, 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7158 (CR-89-5-V, CA-94-59-5-V) United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus Harold Franklin Anderson, Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER The Court amends its opinion filed February 4, 1997, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 7 -- counsel is corrected to read: "Harry Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte , North Carolina, for Appellee." For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7158 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HAROLD FRANKLIN ANDERSON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-89-5-V, CA-94-59-5-V) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Franklin Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. H. Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 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. Anderson , Nos. CR-89-5-V; CA-94-59-5-V (W.D.N.C. June 25, 1996). We dispense withoral 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
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-30627

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Nathaniel W. Turner, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:19-CR-76-1

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Nathaniel W. Turner was found guilty by a jury of drug and firearm 

offenses. He was sentenced to a total of 200 months of imprisonment, 

followed by five years of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the 

district court erred in admitting jail call recordings into evidence because they 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 1, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-30627 Document: 00516530373 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2022
No. 21-30627

2

were improperly authenticated and that the district court erred in applying a 

sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) because the 

Government failed to prove that he possessed two of the firearms attributed 

to him. 

Although it is questionable whether Turner preserved his evidentiary 

challenge for appeal, it is not necessary to decide the standard of review, as

the district court did not err in admitting the jail call recordings. See United 

States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Biggins, 

551 F.2d 64, 66 (5th Cir. 1977). The testimony regarding the recording and 

retrieval of the calls as well as the identification of Turner as a participant on 

the calls supports the district court’s finding that the recordings were 

sufficiently authenticated. See United States v. Buchanan, 70 F.3d 818, 827 

(5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Johnson, 943 F.3d 214, 220-21 (5th 

Cir. 2019); Biggins, 551 F.2d at 66. Turner’s arguments regarding 

authentication implicate only the weight of the evidence and not its 

admissibility. See United States v. Isiwele, 635 F.3d 196, 200 (5th Cir. 2011).

Next, the district court did not clearly err in determining that Turner 

possessed the HK P30 pistol and the Ruger P95 pistol because the record, 

including the unrebutted facts in the presentence report, supports the 

plausible inference that Turner constructively possessed them both. See

United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. 

Houston, 364 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2004); United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 

322, 329 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-30627 Document: 00516530373 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2022
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1365 KA 11-01669** 
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

ROBERT M. PUSATERI, CONFLICT DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (EDWARD P. PERLMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. BITTNER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), dated August 1, 2011. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq .). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court properly assessed 15 points for his history of drug or alcohol abuse as recommended in the risk assessment instrument prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. The court’s determination to accept that recommendation is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence ( see generally § 168-n [3]), including defendant’s admission of drug and alcohol use as set forth in the presentence report and in his initial statement to the police ( see People v Mundo , 98 AD3d 1292, 1292; People v Longtin , 54 AD3d 1110, 1111, lv denied 11 NY3d 714).

Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the court properly granted the People’s request for an upward departure from the presumptive level two risk based on his score on the risk assessment instrument and assessed him as a level three risk. An upward departure is warranted where, as here, “ ‘there exists an aggravating . . . factor of a kind, or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the [risk assessment] guidelines’ ” ( People v McCollum , 41 AD3d 1187, 1188, lv denied 9 NY3d 807; see People v Perrah , 99 AD3d 1257, 1257). The court properly relied upon the facts of the underlying conviction, which involved sexual acts with children in a park during the daytime, and defendant’s prior history of sexual**-2- 1365 KA 11-01669** 

acts with children, in determining that an upward departure to a level three risk was warranted ( see Correction Law §§ 168- l [6] [c]; 168-n [3]; People v Howe , 49 AD3d 1302, 1302).

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit 10.63****FORM OF RETENTION AGREEMENT**Because you are an important part of the management and professional team of Texas Eastern ProductsPipeline Company, LLC (“Company”), the general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. (the“Partnership”), it has been determined that it is in the best interests of the Partnership and itsunit holders to offer you appropriate incentives to continue to focus on the business of thePartnership during the shared-service integration process between the EPCO, Inc. (“EPCO”) family ofentities and the Company. Only those employees who are selected shall be eligible to participatein this retention program.The retention program is implemented through individualized agreements entered into between EPCOand each participant which becomes effective with respect to a participant immediately upon suchparticipant and an appropriate officer of EPCO executing same.This Retention Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into effective                     , 2006,(“Effective Date”) between EPCO and                      (“Employee”).WHEREAS, EPCO desires to enter into this Agreement with Employee to provide a method for providingretention payment to encourage continued high performance and to encourage Employee to remainemployed through the shared-service integration process.NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration thereof and of the covenants hereafter set forth, the partieshereby agree as follows:Provided Employee shall have remained as an active fulltime employee of EPCO from the EffectiveDate through December 31, 2007 without interruption, EPCO shall pay to Employee in cash, on orbefore January 31, 2008, a gross amount equal to the product of the amount of Employee’s baseannual salary on December 31, 2007 times                     %, less applicable withholding (“Retention Payment”).In addition, Employee must maintain a satisfactory level of performance during the retention periodto be eligible for the Retention Payment. In the event Employee is involuntarily terminated due topoor performance, no Retention Payment shall be made to Employee. Employee is not eligible for aRetention Payment if Employee voluntarily terminates employment, is terminated for ‘cause’ orretires on or before December 31, 2007.Employee understands that the terms of this Agreement are confidential and Employee shall notdisclose either the existence of this Agreement nor the terms hereof. Should Employee violate theconfidentiality provisions of this Agreement, Employee shall not be eligible for the RetentionPayment.EPCO, Inc.         By:        Name:      Employee:           Title:
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2627 

To suspend temporarily the duty certain electrical transformers rated at 

40VA. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2011 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Mr. MCGOVERN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty certain electrical 

transformers rated at 40VA. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS RATED 

4 AT 40VA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2627 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 120 volt/60 Hz electrical 

transformers, each with dimensions of 86 mm by 71 

mm by 91 mm, containing a 

layered and uncut round core 

with two balanced bobbins, 

the foregoing rated at 40VA 

(provided for in subheading 

8504.31.40) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2014 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 24


                        POWER OF ATTORNEY

                     AEP GENERATING COMPANY
      Annual Report on Form lO-K for the Fiscal Year Ended
                        December 31, 1996

     The undersigned directors of AEP GENERATING COMPANY, an Ohio
corporation (the "Company"), do hereby constitute and appoint E.
LINN DRAPER, JR., G. P. MALONEY and P. J. DeMARIA, and each of
them, their attorneys-in-fact and agents, to execute for them, and
in their names, and in any and all of their capacities, the Annual
Report of the Company on Form lO-K, pursuant to Section 13 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 1996, 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
unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full
power and authority to do and perform every act and thing required
or necessary to be done, as fully to all intents and purposes as
the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of
them, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed these presents
this 26th day of February, 1997.


/s/ P. J. DeMaria                  /s/ Wm. J. Lhota
------------------------------     ------------------------------
P. J. DeMaria                      Wm. J. Lhota


/s/ E. Linn Draper, Jr.            /s/ G. P. Maloney
------------------------------     ------------------------------
E. Linn Draper, Jr.                G. P. Maloney


/s/ Henry W. Fayne                 /s/ James J. Markowsky
------------------------------     ------------------------------
Henry W. Fayne                     James J. Markowsky


/s/ John R. Jones
------------------------------
John R. Jones
exhibit-10_25.htm


AMENDMENT TO


 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


(Restated as of December 31, 2007)


 


WHEREAS, Core Laboratories N.V. and Monty L. Davis have heretofore entered into that certain Employment Agreement (Restated as of December 31, 2007) (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is amended hereby effective as of January 1, 2010 (the “Effective Date”), as follows:


 


1. Section 2.2 is amended by changing the stated percentage from 100% to 125% such that the section would now read as follows:


 


“Executive shall be eligible to receive an annual bonus of up to 125% of Executive’s annual base salary with the amount of such bonus to be determined by the Committee based upon criteria established from time to time by the Committee.”


 


2. As amended hereby, the Agreement is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the 1st day of March, 2010, effective for all purposes as of the Effective Date.


 


CORE LABORATORIES N.V.


By Core Laboratories International B.V.,


its sole managing director












By:           /s/ Jan Willem Sodderland


Jan Willem Sodderland


Managing Director of Core Laboratories


International B.V.












/s/ Monty L. Davis


Monty L. Davis
1998 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-16-1998

Mennen Company v. Atl Mutl Ins Co

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 97-5266

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1998 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Mennen Company v. Atl Mutl Ins Co" (1998). 1998 Decisions. Paper 159.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998/159
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 No. 97-5266 

The Meenenn Company v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, et. al. 

 The following modifications have been made to the Court's 

opinion issued on June 26, 1998 in the above-entitled appeal and 

will appear as part of the final version of the opinion: 

 

 1. Add the name of "Kevin J. McKenna, Esquire" immediately 

below that of Mr. Gibbons. 

 /s/ P. Douglas Sisk, 

 Clerk 

July 16, 1998
Exhibit
      23





Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








Iconix
      Brand Group, Inc.


New
      York,
      New York





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-3  (Nos. 
      333-96985,  333-116716, 333-120581, 128425 and 333-129075) and on Form
      S-8 (Nos.333-27655,  333-49178, 333-68906,  333-75658 and
      333-127416) of
      Iconix Brand Group, Inc. of our reports dated March 18, 2006, relating to the
      consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, and the
      effectiveness of Iconix Brand Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial
      reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K.











/s/
      BDO
      Seidman, LLP





New
      York,
      New York





March
      20,
      2006
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated March 11, 2004, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of JMAR
Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
Statements of JMAR Technologies, Inc. on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-47390, effective
July 2, 1993, 33-96848 effective August 14, 1996, 333-46392 effective October 5,
2000, 333-67056 effective October 11, 2001, 333-72860 effective June 13, 2002,
333-104640 effective May 23, 2003, 333-110258 effective December 18, 2003,
333-111993 effective January 29, 2004, and 333-112639 effective February 17,
2004 and on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-33902 effective April 3, 2000, 333-33904
effective April 3, 2000, 333-111994 effective January 16, 2004, 333-112059
effective January 21, 2004, and 333-112060 effective January 21, 2004).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Irvine, California
March 11, 2004
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-18-00017-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

TYLEEN MARIE TATE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. 49259

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State of Texas filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal from the trial court’s grant 

of Tyleen Marie Tate’s motion to suppress evidence. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 

44.01(a)(5) (West Supp. 2017). More specifically, the State attempted to appeal from a January 11, 

2018, letter from the trial court to the parties advising them how the court planned to rule on Tate’s 

motion.

This Court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal absent a written judgment or order. See, e.g., 

Nikrasch v. State, 698 S.W.2d 443, 450 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, no pet.). As our sister court in 

Dallas so aptly stated,

A letter from the trial court to counsel is typically not the type of document that 

constitutes a judgment, decision, or order. Only a letter evidencing a decision 

actually rendered, describing the decision with certainty as to parties and effect, and 

publicly announcing entry of the decision by prompt filing possesses all the 

necessary attributes of an order.

Cooksey v. State, No. 05-12-00301-CR, 2013 WL 1934943, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 10, 

2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citations omitted);1see Goff v. 

Tuchscherer, 627 S.W.2d 397, 398–99 (Tex. 1982) (typically, “Letters to counsel are not the kind 

of documents that constitute a judgment, decision or order from which an appeal may be taken.”). 

By letter dated February 9, 2018, we informed the State of the potential jurisdictional issue 

stemming from the lack of an appealable written order and provided the State an opportunity to 

 

1Although this unpublished case has no precedential value, we may take guidance from it “as an aid in developing 

reasoning that may be employed.” Carillo v. State, 98 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, pet. ref’d).
3

demonstrate how we have jurisdiction notwithstanding the noted defect. We afforded the State ten 

days to respond to our jurisdictional defect letter. The State did not file a response.

Because the trial court’s January 11, 2018, letter does not constitute an appealable written 

order, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: February 26, 2018

Date Decided: February 27, 2018

Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK>  0001015360
<NAME> DAILEY INTERNATIONAL INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          59,837
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     21,074
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,207
<PP&E>                                           8,181
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,850
<BONDS>                                        114,229
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            94
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,277
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,177
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    363
<INCOME-TAX>                                       142
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                221
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       221
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>