alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Andre DREW, Appellant.

No. 07-3104.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 19, 2011.

Rehearing En Banc Denied July 27, 2011.

Roy Wallace McLeese, III, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

A.J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender, Neil H. Jaffee, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender (FPD), Washington, DC, for Appellant.

Before GINSBURG, ROGERS, and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment filed September 12, 2007, be affirmed. Appel*2lant has not shown that he was entitled to dismissal of the chai'ges in the district court based on his claim that his counsel in the District of Columbia Superior Court rendered ineffective assistance. Appellant had already been appointed new counsel in the Superior Court before the case against appellant was dismissed in that court. Likewise, the district court did not err in declining to rule on appellant’s *pro se*motion to dismiss, because appellant and his counsel simply requested that the motion be made part of the record, not that it be ruled upon, and the motion did not involve any allegations against the attorneys representing appellant in the district court.

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion when it sustained the government’s objection to proposed testimony of a police detective about statements made by a non-testifying victim during a 911 call and a police interview, because those statements were not proper impeachment evidence of any government witness. *See*Fed.R.Evid. 613(b). Furthermore, appellant’s claims that the government conspired to obtain his conviction by knowingly sponsoring perjured testimony, and coaching witnesses to provide such testimony, are not supported by the record. Finally, the arguments presented in appellant’s brief in support of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not sufficient to warrant a remand to the district court in accordance with *United States v. Rashad,*331 F.3d 908 (D.C.Cir.2003). We otherwise express no opinion about the merits of appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 1, 2020

s0428 

# Order

Clerk May 1, 2020

160594

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 160594

COA: 343225

Monroe CC: 17

- 243894

- FH

ERICK ROSEAN ALLEN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 1 , 2019

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this

order addressing: (1) whether thi s Court’s holding in People v Idziak , 484 Mich 549

(2009), encompasses parolees who are arrested for a new offense but are not subject to a

parole detainer; if so, (2) whether that part of Idziak ’s holding was correctly decided; and

(3) whether the appellant has established plain error affecting his substantial rights. In

addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to

MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citatio ns to the record must provide the appendix page

numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental brief

within 21 days of being served with the appellant’s brief. The appellee shall also

electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix

filed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of

being served with the appellee’s brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements

of their application papers.

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense

Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups

interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the C ourt

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0671 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. GENE DEVERAUX ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including Ocotber 9 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 2 2020

09/02/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0671
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Lopez, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 510]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered September 6, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court conducted a thorough inquiry and recitation on the record of the facts and reasons for invoking the statutory authorization for discharging and replacing a juror based on continued unavailability *(see, People v Page,*72 NY2d 69).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Krausrnan and Luciano, JJ., concur.
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northport Investments,
  Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,
  2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the Report), I, Richard Wang, 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.

/s/ Richard Wang
  Richard Wang
  Chief Financial Officer 
  May 12, 2004

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Allen Robinson, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 457]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered November 29, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The defendant’s supporting papers were conclusory and failed to set forth factual allegations sufficient to warrant a hearing *(see*CPL 710.60 [3]; *People v Bryant,*8 NY3d 530, 533 [2007]; *People v Mendoza,*82 NY2d 415, 427 [1993]; *People v Graden,*42 NY2d 214, 218 [1977]; *People v Smith,*69 AD3d 657, 657 [2010]).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the County Court improperly permitted two New York State Troopers, who were not formally qualified as *1029expert witnesses, to testify regarding the street value of 647 80-milligram Oxycodene pills that were recovered from him, that, based on the number of pills recovered, they were not for personal use, and that a Mountain Dew can with a “false bottom” seized from the defendant was an object used to secretly transport narcotics. In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit. Although not formally qualified as expert witnesses, the Troopers demonstrated through their testimony that they had sufficient experience to qualify as expert witnesses on street-level drug dealing *(see People v Tevaha,*204 AD2d 92, 93 [1994], *affd*84 NY2d 879 [1994]; *People v Lacend,*216 AD2d 112 [1995]; *see also People v Syshawn,*200 AD2d 778 [1994]).

The County Court properly admitted into evidence the Mountain Dew can as evidence of the defendant’s intent to sell drugs *(see People v Randolph,*157 AD2d 866 [1990]; *United States v Carlson,*613 F3d 813, 820 [8th Cir 2010]; *see also People v McCray,*51 NY2d 594, 605 [1980]; *People v Whitney,*224 AD2d 648 [1996]; *People v Williams,*195 AD2d 889, 890 [1993]; *People v Jones,*138 AD2d 405 [1988]).

The defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was based on considerations not presented in evidence is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Jorgensen,*113 AD3d 793, 795 [2014]; *People v Harris,*101 AD3d 900 [2012]) and, in any event, without merit *(see People v Jorgensen,*113 AD3d at 795). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Chambers, J.P., Austin, Hinds-Radix and Duffy, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 10.20 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This Amendment dated this 8th day of March, 2004,
covers the Employment Agreement dated October 24, 1994
between Edelbrock Corporation, a Delaware corporation
(Edelbrock) and Jeffrey L. Thompson
(Employee).




|           |                     
|---------- | --------------------
|Section 3. | Term and Termination



| |     |                                                                                                           
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 3.1 | Employees term of employment shall be amended to cover the
    period July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2009.

All other provisions of the October 24, 1994 Agreement
shall remain unchanged and be in full force and effect.



|                        | 
|----------------------- | 
|EMPLOYEE                | 
|                       
|/s/ Jeffrey L. Thompson | 
|                        | 
|Jeffrey L. Thompson     | 
|                       
|EDELBROCK CORPORATION   | 



|    |                             | 
|--- | --------------------------- | 
|By: | /s/ O. Victor Edelbrock Jr. | 

| | 
| | 
| | 



|     |                    | 
|---- | ------------------ | 
|Its: | President & C.E.O. | 

| | 
| | 
| |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7211

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID WILBERT SHANTON, SR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CR-89-250, CA-01-81) Submitted: December 11, 2002 Decided: January 3, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Wilbert Shanton, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia; Sherry L. Muncy, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Shanton filed his notice of appeal more than sixty days after the district court entered its order on the docket, seeFed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), and failed to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6). We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal, however, because the district court’s order was not entered on a separate judgment as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. See Hughes v. Halifax County Sch. Bd. , 823 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1987) (finding that five-page order did not satisfy separate judgment where order contained procedural history of case and district court’s reasoning). Thus, the appeal period never began to run, and Shanton’s appeal may not be dismissed as untimely. SeeQuinn v. Haynes , 234 F.3d 837, 843 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 532 U.S. 1024 (2001).
2 PER CURIAM: David Wilbert Shanton, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). * An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the [motion] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and3 conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Shanton has not made the requisite showing. See Slack , 529 U.S. at 484. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); Slack , 529 U.S. at 484. 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. German OCAMPO-MURILLO, also known as German Murillo, also known as Francisco Torres-Figueroa, also known as German Leonardo, Appellant.

No. 11-1889.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 10, 2011.

Filed: Aug. 11, 2011.

Robert Merrell Butler, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellee.

Joanne M. Lilledahl, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellant.

German Ocampo-Murillo, Marengo, IA, pro se.

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

German Ocampo-Murillo pled guilty to reentering the United States unlawfully after having been deported following conviction for an aggravated felony, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). The district court1 sentenced him to 57 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the undisputed advisory Guidelines range. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable and that the district court abused its discretion in declining to recommend to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that Ocampo-Murillo participate in its 500-hour drug-treatment program.

We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error at sentencing and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Feemster,*572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to recommend the 500-hour drug-treatment program, especially given the lack of evidence of recent substance abuse by Ocampo-Murillo. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (“The [BOP] shall make available appropriate substance abuse treatment for each prisoner [it] determines has a treatable condition of substance addiction or abuse.”).

Having reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

Execution Version 

CONSENT, AGREEMENT AND AFFIRMATION OF GUARANTY AND PLEDGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT 

Each of the undersigned Guarantors hereby consents to the terms of the foregoing Amendment and agrees that the terms of the Amendment shall not impair or
limit in any way its obligations and liabilities under any Loan Document (as such Loan Documents are amended or otherwise expressly modified by the Amendment), all of which obligations and liabilities shall remain in full force and effect and each
of which is hereby reaffirmed (as amended or otherwise expressly modified by the Amendment). The Guarantors hereby confirm that the security interests and Liens granted pursuant to the Loan Documents continue to secure the Obligations (including the
Local Credit Facility Obligations), as such Obligations may be modified pursuant to the foregoing Amendment, and that such security interests and Liens remain in full force and effect. 

 

			
	JARDEN CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John E. Capps

	Name:	 	John E. Capps
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President-Administration, General Counsel and Secretary
	
	ALLTRISTA PLASTICS LLC
	AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD, INC.
	AUSTRALIAN COLEMAN, INC.
	BICYCLE HOLDING, INC.
	BRK BRANDS, INC.
	CC OUTLET, INC.
	COLEMAN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LLC
	COLEMAN WORLDWIDE CORPORATION
	ENVIROCOOLER, LLC
	FIRST ALERT, INC.
	HEARTHMARK, LLC
	HOLMES MOTOR CORPORATION
	JARDEN ACQUISITION I, LLC
	JARDEN ZINC PRODUCTS, LLC
	JT SPORTS LLC
	K-2 CORPORATION
	KANSAS ACQUISITION CORP.
	L.A. SERVICES, INC.
	LASER ACQUISITION CORP.
	LEHIGH CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC
	LIFOAM HOLDINGS, LLC
	LIFOAM INDUSTRIES, LLC
	LIFOAM PACKAGING SOLUTIONS, LLC
	LOEW-CORNELL, LLC
	MARKER VOLKL USA, INC.
	MARMOT MOUNTAIN, LLC
	MIKEN SPORTS, LLC
	NIPPON COLEMAN, INC.










			
	OUTDOOR SPORTS GEAR, INC.
	OUTDOOR TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
	PENN FISHING TACKLE MFG. CO.
	PURE FISHING, INC.
	QMC BUYER CORP.
	QUICKIE HOLDINGS, INC.
	QUICKIE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
	QUOIN, LLC
	RAWLINGS SPORTING GOODS COMPANY, INC.
	REXAIR HOLDINGS, INC.
	REXAIR LLC
	SEA STRIKER, LLC
	SHAKESPEARE COMPANY, LLC
	SHAKESPEARE CONDUCTIVE FIBERS, LLC
	SI II, INC.
	SITCA CORPORATION
	SUNBEAM AMERICAS HOLDINGS, LLC
	SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC.
	THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC.
	THE UNITED STATES PLAYING CARD COMPANY
	THE YANKEE CANDLE COMPANY, INC.
	USPC HOLDING, INC.
	YANKEE CANDLE INVESTMENTS LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John E. Capps

	Name:	 	John E. Capps
	Title:	 	Vice President
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000532 19-DEC-2018 08:22 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            9804
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             350
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      72719
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            1738
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              1699
<LOANS>                                         455736
<ALLOWANCE>                                       4254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  557086
<DEPOSITS>                                      361786
<SHORT-TERM>                                     74051
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              13114
<LONG-TERM>                                      73896
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                       34184
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  557086
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  34751
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 3184
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   270
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 38205
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               16425
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               21956
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            16249
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      427
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  17
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  12438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6221
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        6221
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4104
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.69
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.83
<LOANS-NON>                                       1201
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   2149
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  4143
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      323
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 4254
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           4254


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries



|                               |  |                                        |  | 
|------------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------- |  | 
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY             |  | STATE OF INCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION
|                               |  |                                       
|Intervest National Bank        |  | National Banking Association           |  | 
|                               |  |                                       
|Intervest Mortgage Corporation |  | New York                               |  | 
|                               |  |                                       
|Intervest Statutory Trust II   |  | Connecticut Business Trust             |  | 
|                               |  |                                       
|Intervest Statutory Trust III  |  | Connecticut Business Trust             |  | 
|                               |  |                                       
|Intervest Statutory Trust IV   |  | Delaware Business Trust                |  | 
|                               |  |                                       
|Intervest Statutory Trust V    |  | Delaware Business Trust                |  |