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

[666 NYS2d 43]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.), rendered July 11, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the People did not disprove his defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245, 250). In any *536event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

August 20, 2014

Before

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 13‐3154

KAREN MURPHY,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 12 CV 3879

Young B. Kim,

Magistrate Judge.

O R D E R

The opinion issued on July 22, 2014 is amended as follows:

On page 17 of the slip opinion, lines 10‐14 are deleted and replaced with: “The

judgment is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED with instructions to return the case

to the Social SecurityAdministration forfurther proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131079 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131079 COA: 263673 Wayne CC: 90-003140 TYRONE ROOSEV ELT GARLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 9, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Smith, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 44]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), rendered April 18, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to hear and report on the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was denied the right to a speedy retrial, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Kings County, is to file its report with all convenient speed.

Following the declaration of a mistrial, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was denied his right to a speedy retrial. Inasmuch as the defendant sustained his initial burden of alleging an unexcused delay in excess of six months between the date that the mistrial was ordered and the date of his retrial *(see,*CPL 30.30 [5]), and the People’s opposition raised factual disputes but did not conclusively refute the defendant’s claim with “unquestionable documentary proof’ (CPL 210.45 [5] [c]), this matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing on the defendant’s motion *(see,*CPL 210.45 [5]; *People v Santos,*68 NY2d 859, 861; *People v Wilson,*188 AD2d 671, 672).

We pass on no other issues at this juncture. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.
#### Maria CALDERON-MIJANGO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72204.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Maria Concepcion Calderon-Mijango, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Seth A. Director, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Calderon-Mijango, a native and *782citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review and we remand.

We recently held that the BIA could not reject “all women in Guatemala” as a particular social group solely because it was overly broad and internally diverse. *See Perdomo v. Holder,*611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th Cir.2010) (remanding for further proceedings). Here, the IJ similarly rejected Calderon-Mijango’s social group consisting of women in El Salvador as “too large and internally diverse.” We grant CalderonMijango’s petition for review with respect to her asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand for the BIA to reconsider the claims in light of *Perdomo. See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because CalderonMijango failed to establish it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. *See Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANAPR07-0011INTHEMATTEROFCALLINGADISTRICTJUDGETOACTIVESERVICEORDERInOctober2020,theHonorableJarnesA.Manley,JudgeoftheDistrictCourtfortheTwentiethJudicialDistrictoftheStateofMontana,requestedtheassistanceofretiredDistrictJudgeKarenTownsendtoassurnejurisdictionofLakeCountyCauseNo.DV20-109,Briney,etal.v.PresbyterianChurch,etal.JudgeTownsendwasnolongerabletopresideoverthismatter,andtheHonorableAmyEddyagreedtoassumejurisdiction.Asubstitutionofjudgehasbeenfiled,andtheHonorableElizabethA.Besthasagreedtoassumejurisdiction.ITISHEREBYORDERED:1.TheHonorableElizabethA.BestisherebyauthorizedtoassisttheTwentiethJudicialDistrictoftheStateofMontanaandshallassumejudicialauthorityofLakeCountyCauseNo.DV20-109,Briney,etal.v.PresbyterianChurch,etal.2.JudgeBestisherebyauthorizedtoproceedwithanyandallnecessaryhearings,opinions,andorders,includingfinalresolutionofsaidrnatter.3.AcopyofthisOrdershallbefiledwiththeClerkofCourtofLakeCounty,withtherequestthatthisOrderbesenttoallcounselofrecordinCountyCauseNo.DV20-109,Briney,etal.v.PresbyterianChurch,etal.AcopyofthisOrdershallbeprovidedtotheHonorableJamesA.Manley,theHonorableElizabethA.Best,theHonorableArnyEddy,andBethMcLaughlin,SuprerneCourtAdministrator.ThisOrderisenteredbytheChiefJusticepursuanttoArticleVII,Section6(3)ofthe1972MontanaConstitution,andstatutesenactedinconformitytherewithandinimplementationthereof.08/06/2021Case Number: PR 07-0011i

f -

-

- DATED

this

'

I vo

day

of August,

2021.

Chief Justice 2
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. (the
Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Raúl Alarcón, Jr., Chairman of the Board of
Directors, President and Chief Executive 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2)          The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Raúl Alarcón, Jr.Name:
    
    Raúl Alarcón, Jr.Title:
    
    Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    March 16, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2976 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2976

    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for 
  coverage, as supplies associated with the injection of insulin, of 
 containment, removal, decontamination and disposal of home-generated 
    needles, syringes, and other sharps through a sharps container, 
   decontamination/destruction device, or sharps-by-mail program or 
         similar program under part D of the Medicare Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 19, 2009

  Mr. Castle introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for 
  coverage, as supplies associated with the injection of insulin, of 
 containment, removal, decontamination and disposal of home-generated 
    needles, syringes, and other sharps through a sharps container, 
   decontamination/destruction device, or sharps-by-mail program or 
         similar program under part D of the Medicare Program.

    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 ``Medicare Safe Needle Disposal 
Coverage Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF CONTAINMENT, REMOVAL, DECONTAMINATION AND DISPOSAL 
              OF HOME-GENERATED NEEDLES, SYRINGES, AND OTHER SHARPS 
              THROUGH A SHARPS CONTAINER, DECONTAMINATION/DESTRUCTION 
              DEVICE, OR SHARPS-BY-MAIL PROGRAM OR SIMILAR PROGRAM 
              UNDER MEDICARE PART D.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860D-2(e)(1)(B) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-102(e)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting after 
``regulations of the Secretary'' the following: ``and including devices 
approved for home use by the Food and Drug Administration for the safe 
and effective containment, removal, decontamination and disposal of 
home-generated needles, syringes, and other sharps through a sharps 
container, decontamination/destruction device, or sharps-by-mail 
program or similar program''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on January 1, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30799

Summary Calendar

GORDON GAMBLE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

CHEVRON ORONITE COMPANY, L.L.C.; GARY THOMAS, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:18-CV-10102

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See Fifth Cir. R. 47.6.

* 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

May 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-30799 Document: 00515411899 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2020
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Ford, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 858]

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.), both rendered February 28, 2013, convicting him of criminal mischief in the fourth degree under indictment No. 1405/12 and criminal mischief in the third degree under *1019indictment No. 5809/12, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Mastro, J.E, Hall, Lott, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.
#### Dewight Vaughn MCBRIDE, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Buchanan VIRGIN; Owen Murray; Warden Rupert; Doctor Gray Wright; Unknown Schafer; Doctor Jack Thompson, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-40598

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 24, 2011.

Dewight Vaughn McBride, Sr., Tennessee Colony, TX, pro se.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Proceeding *pro se*and *in fomia pauper-is*(“IFP”), Dewight Vaughn McBride, Sr., Texas prisoner # 1337667, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint contending that the defendants were negligent in failing to treat him properly for diarrhea. After reviewing medical records and a *Martinez*report submitted by the Texas Attorney General’s Office, the district court dismissed for failure state a claim and as frivolous. *See Martinez v. Aaron,*570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir.1978).

McBride’s appellate brief consists of two pages. His argument section had only one sentence: “This Court has a duty to insure that prisoners are properly cared for as the standards of constitutional magnitude dictates.” McBride does not challenge the magistrate judge’s lengthy reasons for concluding that he failed to allege an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim and that Dr. Murray and Warden Rupert were not liable as supervisors or that the retaliation claim against Dr. Wright was frivolous.

Where an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if he had not appealed. *Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Although *pro se*briefs are afforded liberal construction, *Haines v. Kerner,*404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), even *pro se*litigants must brief *327arguments to preserve them. *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). McBride has abandoned any challenge to the judgment. *See Brinkmann,*813 F.2d at 748.

Because the appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous, *see Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983), it is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the district court’s dismissal. *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). We caution McBride that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

*

 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.
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATIONS

I, James K. Hilger,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc.; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 29, 2016

/s/ James K.
Hilger

James K. Hilger

Interim Chief Financial Officer

and Chief Accounting Officer
<PAGE>
 


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on 
Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-90702, 33-90726, 33-90732 and 333-3408), of PRI 
Automation, Inc. of our report dated November 6, 1996, on our audits of the 
consolidated financial statements of PRI Automation, Inc. as of September 30, 
1996 and 1995 and for each of the three years in the period ended September 30, 
1996, which report is included in the Company's 1996 Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                            /s/ Coopers & Lybrand LLP

                                            COOPERS & LYBRAND LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
December 16, 1996
Order filed May 6, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00149

- CR

____________ KALLUPPE DJUAN ALLEN , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 6

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1902878



### ORDER
Appellant is represented by retained counsel, Mark Aronowitz. No reporter’s
record has been filed in this case. Marcia E. Barnett , the official court reporter for
the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 6, informed this court that appellant had not made arrangements for paym ent for the reporter’s record. On March 26, 2014 , the clerk of this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that do not require a reporter’s record unl ess appellant, within 15 days of notice, provided this court with proof of payment for the record. See Tex. R. App.
P. 37.3(c). Appellant filed no reply.Accordingly, we issue the following order:

We ORDER appellant ’ s retained counsel, Mark Aronowitz, to file a brief in this appeal on or before June 5, 2014. If Mark Aronowitz does not timely file the brief as ordered, we will issue a show cause order directing him to appear before this court on a date certain to show cause why he should not be held in cont empt for failing to file the brief as ordered.

PER CURIAM
#### Harjeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74700.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Harjeet Singh, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.

Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Harjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that Singh failed to establish that former counsels’ performance resulted in prejudice, and thus his claim of ineffective assistance fails. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (prejudice results when the performance of counsel “was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.