alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed September 29, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00097-CR

NO. 14-19-00098-CR

NO. 14-19-00099-CR

NO. 14-19-00100-CR

PATRICK DEON SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 21st District Court

Washington County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 17557, 17675, 17814, and 17908

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

Appellant Patrick Deon Smith moved the trial court to allow him to 

withdraw his “guilty” plea, asserting that he was not informed that the range of 

punishment would be 25 years to life and that he did not understand that to be the 

applicable range of punishment. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, 

appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion 
2

because the trial court did not give proper consideration to appellant’s impaired 

mental condition in light of Dr. Cantu’s competency evaluation report allegedly 

stating that appellant was confused about how to plead to the charges against him. 

Appellant argues in this court that the trial court failed to consider that his mental 

illness and intellectual disabilities compromised his ability to understand the 

applicable range of punishment.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require that to preserve error for 

appellate review, the record must show that the party raised the complaint in the 

trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion in which the party stated the 

grounds for the ruling the party sought from the trial court with sufficient 

specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific 

grounds were apparent from the context. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Clark v. 

State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Under this preservation-oferror rule, each complaint appellant raises on appeal must comport with a 

complaint he raised in the trial court. See Clark, 365 S.W.3d at 339.

In the trial court appellant asserted that he was not informed of the range of 

punishment and that he did not understand that the applicable range of punishment 

was 25 years to confinement for life. Appellant did not argue in the trial court that 

his mental illness and intellectual disabilities compromised his ability to 

understand the applicable range of punishment. Appellant did submit Dr. Cantu’s 

competency evaluation report in support of his motion to withdraw his “guilty”

plea, nor did appellant refer to the report. To the extent appellant now relies on Dr.

Cantu’s report or argues that appellant’s mental illness and intellectual disabilities

prevented him from understanding the range of punishment, appellant did not 

preserve error in the trial court. See id. Appellant preserved error on his complaint 

that he was not informed of the applicable range of punishment, but this complaint 
3

lacks merit because the record shows that appellant was informed of the applicable 

range of punishment.

/s/ Kem Thompson Frost

Chief Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot

(Bourliot, J., majority).

Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
1

11-5273-cr

United States v. Opoku-Agyemang

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order 

filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a 

document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an 

electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order 

must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. 

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at 

the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New 

York, on the 5

th day of February, two thousand fourteen.

PRESENT:

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

SUSAN L. CARNEY,

CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

Circuit Judges.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

-v.- No. 11-5273-cr

KOFI OPOKU-AGYEMANG,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

FOR APPELLEE: RAJIT S. DOSANJH, Assistant United States 

Attorney, for Richard S. Hartunian, United 

States Attorney for the Northern District of 

New York, Syracuse, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: STEVEN YUROWITZ, Newman & Greenberg,

New York, NY.
2

Appeal from a judgment, entered December 16, 2011, of the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of New York (Thomas J. McAvoy, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Kofi Opoku-Agyemang (“Opoku”) timely appeals his conviction and subsequent 

sentence on charges of possession of a stolen access device (here, credit card numbers) with intent 

to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3) and (b)(1) , and possession of images of United 

States currency with intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 474(a) and 481. 

Opoku challenges his conviction and sentence on numerous grounds. Specifically, Opoku 

argues that (1) the District Court erred by admitting evidence of his prior conviction; (2) his waiver 

of his right to counsel was not “knowing and intelligent”; (3) the evidence was insufficient to 

support a conviction on Count Two; (4) the District Court erred when it denied him a continuance 

to consult an expert and limiting his cross-examination of Government witnesses; (5) Opoku was 

not competent to represent himself at sentencing; and (6) his sentence was procedurally and 

substantively unreasonable.

We have reviewed the record and considered all of Opoku’s arguments on appeal and find 

them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court entered 

December 16, 2011. 

FOR THE COURT,

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
FLRA NEWS

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY - WASHINGTON, DC 20424

Contact: Eric Prag FLRA.gov FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 771-444-5859 January 3, 2023

Susan Tsui Grundmann designated FLRA Chairman

Today, January 3, 2023, President Joseph Biden designated Susan Tsui Grundmann as Federal 

Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) Chairman, when the holdover period for former Chairman 

Ernest DuBester’s term expired. Chairman DuBester had served as an FLRA Member since 

August of 2009 and as Chairman from January to November of 2013, in January of 2017, and 

most recently from January of 2021 to January of 2023.

“It is a privilege to be chosen by President Biden to serve as Chairman of the FLRA,” Chairman 

Grundmann said.

Ms. Grundmann was sworn in on May 17, 2022 as a Member of the Authority – the FLRA’s 

three-Member decisional component – following her Senate confirmation on May 12, 2022. 

She formerly served as the Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Office of 

Congressional Workplace Rights, and earlier as a Member and Chairman of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board. An attorney, Ms. Grundmann has also been general counsel to the National 

Federation of Federal Employees, and to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.

For more background on Chairman Grundmann and other FLRA leadership, click here.

###

The FLRA administers the labor-management relations program for 2.1 million non-Postal federal 

employees worldwide, approximately 1.2 million of whom are represented in 2,200 bargaining 

units. It is charged with providing leadership in establishing policies and guidance related to 

federal sector labor-management relations and with resolving disputes under, and ensuring 

compliance with, the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
**Exhibit
31.2**
 
 Certification
Pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)
 As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the
 Sarbanes
- Oxley Act of 2002
 
 I,
Richard K Brock, certify that:
 
 1.  I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Professional Lease Management
Income Fund I, L.L.C (the Registrant).
 
 2.  Based on
my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report.
 
 3.  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this annual report.
 
 4.  The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 
 a)  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)  evaluated
the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)  disclosed
in this annual report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 
 5.  The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a)  all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
 
 b)  any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls over financial
reporting.
 
 
 
 
 Date:
March 29, 2005  By:  /s/
Richard K Brock
 Richard K
Brock
 Chief
Financial Officer
 (Principal
Financial Officer)
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3568 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage charitable contributions of real property for conservation purposes by Native Corporations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage 

charitable contributions of real property for conservation 

purposes by Native Corporations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ENCOURAGEMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS OF 

4 CAPITAL GAIN REAL PROPERTY MADE FOR 

5 CONSERVATION PURPOSES BY NATIVE COR6 PORATIONS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 170(b) 

8 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by re9 designating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D), and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3568 IH

1 by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 

2 subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(C) QUALIFIED CONSERVATION CON4 TRIBUTIONS BY CERTAIN NATIVE CORPORA5 TIONS.— 

6 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Any qualified con7 servation contribution (as defined in sub8 section (h)(1)) which— 

9 ‘‘(I) is made by a Native Cor10 poration, and 

11 ‘‘(II) is a contribution of prop12 erty which was land conveyed under 

13 the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

14 Act, 

15 shall be allowed to the extent that the ag16 gregate amount of such contributions does 

17 not exceed the excess of the taxpayer’s tax18 able income over the amount of charitable 

19 contributions allowable under subpara20 graph (A). 

21 ‘‘(ii) CARRYOVER.—If the aggregate 

22 amount of contributions described in clause 

23 (i) exceeds the limitation of clause (i), such 

24 excess shall be treated (in a manner con25 sistent with the rules of subsection (d)(2)) 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3568 IH

1 as a charitable contribution to which clause 

2 (i) applies in each of the 15 succeeding 

3 years in order of time. 

4 ‘‘(iii) DEFINITION.—For purposes of 

5 clause (i), the term ‘Native Corporation’ 

6 has the meaning given such term by sec7 tion 3(m) of the Alaska Native Claims Set8 tlement Act. 

9 ‘‘(iv) VALID EXISTING RIGHTS PRE10 SERVED.—Nothing in this provision shall 

11 be construed to modify the existing prop12 erty rights validly conveyed to Native Cor13 porations under the Alaska Native Claims 

14 Settlement Act.’’ 

15 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

16 170(b)(2)(A) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘sub17 paragraph (B) applies’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraphs (B) 

18 or (C) apply’’. 

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall apply to contributions made in taxable 

21 years beginning after January 1, 2009. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
1

STATEMENT'OF'COMMISSIONER'REBECCA'DYE

REVISED'TIMETABLE'FOR'RETROSPECTIVE'REVIEW'

OF'EXISTING'RULES TO'INCLUDE'SERVICE'

CONTRACT'RULES

FEBRUARY'13,'2013

Review'of'Service'Contract'Filing'Regulations

• I'appreciate'my'fellow'Commissioners'

agreeing'to'require'consideration'of'our'

Service'Contract'filing'rules'in'2013.

• As'you'know,'the staff'recommendation'

before'us'updates'our'plan'to'implement

the'President’s'Executive'Order'13563.

• That'Order'requires'agencies'to'periodically'

review'their'existing'regulations'to'make'

their'regulatory'programs more'effective'

and'less'burdensome'in'achieving'the'

agencies’'regulatory'objectives.
2

• Originally,'our plan for'the'Commission’s'

Retrospective'Review'of'Existing'Rules'

called'for'the'review'of'our'service'contract'

filing'rules'in'46'CFR'Part'530'in'2015.

• When'we'published'that'Plan'for'public'

comment,'we'received'suggestions'from'

representatives'of'ocean'carriers'and'ocean'

transportation'intermediaries.'

• These'suggestions'focused'on'ways'to'make'

the'Commission’s'programs'and'regulations'

more'efficient'and'less'burdensome,'and'

included ways to improve'our'service'

contract'filing and'NVOCC'Service'

Arrangement'regulations.

• I'have'also'received'eZmails'and'letters'from'

many'shippers'and'NVOCC’s'who'encourage'

us'to'sit'down'with'them,'their'ocean'

carrier and'forwarder'business'partners,'

and'come'up'with'a'system'that'is'easier'to'

administer,'at'less'cost.
3

• I'appreciate'these'expressions'of'support'

from'our'shipper'community.

• The'updated'plan'before'us'today'requires

a'review'of'our'service'contract'filing'rules

in'2013.

Cut'Costs'from'International'Supply'Chain

• FactZFinding'Investigation'26'concluded'that'

the'most'effective'longZterm'solutions'to'

the'commercial'problems'experienced'by'

U.S.'exporters'and'importers'would'be'

developed'by'ocean'carriers'working'closely'

with'their'customers.

• Making'our'contract'filing'requirements'less'

time'consuming'and'costly'would'give'

shippers'and'carriers the'contractual'

flexibility'they'need'to'meet'their'business'

goals.

• The'savings from'eliminating'certain'

unnecessary'service'contract'filing'
4

requirements would'make'our'international'

supply'chain'more'efficient and'reliable.

• I'look'forward to'working together'with'

shippers,'intermediaries,'and'ocean'carriers'

to'make'the'marketZbased'reforms'

necessary'to'increase'the'resiliency'of'our'

international'ocean'transportation'system.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 50459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23595]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): October 31, 
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 25, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 371 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-15, CP2018-
31.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-23595 Filed 10-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 9, 2015

No. 04-13-00569-CR

Kristi Rene NIX,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B11614

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marilyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

After her court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, Appellant Kristi Nix filed a pro 

se brief on November 18, 2014. Her brief did not request oral argument. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.1(e); 39.7. On December 10, 2014, acting pro se, Appellant moved this court to grant her oral 

argument.

Appellant’s motion to grant oral argument is DENIED. See id. R. 39.1 (listing reasons 

the court may deny oral argument). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of January, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7442

CRECENCIO PEREZ-PEREZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus C. E. FLOYD, Warden; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-3742-0-06-BD) Submitted: January 5, 1999 Decided: January 26, 1999 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior District Court. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Crecencio Perez-Perez, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Crecencio Perez-Perez appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Perez-Perez v. Floyd , No. CA-97-3742-0-06-BD (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
SCWC-17-0000549

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

JAMES KREITMAN,

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JAMES MILTON DAY, JR. and JENNIVER ELLEN DEMOSS DAY,

Respondents/Defendants-Appellants.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-17-0000549; CASE NO. 3CC15100253K)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, JJ.,

Circuit Judge Viola and Circuit Judge Souza,

assigned by reason of vacancies)

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee James Kreitman’s Application 

for Writ of Certiorari filed on September 28, 2023, is rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, November 20, 2023.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Matthew J. Viola

/s/ Kevin A.K. Souza

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-17-0000549

20-NOV-2023

08:38 AM

Dkt. 20 ODAC
|   | Exhibit      32.1 |
|--------|-------------------|

| Date:           November      10, 2008 |   | /s/      MICHAEL R. HAYNES                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                          |   | Michael      R. Haynes                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|                                                                                          |   | Chief      Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|                                                                                          |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|                                                                                          |   | A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been      provided to Collectors Universe, Inc. and will be retained by Collectors      Universe, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or      its staff upon request. |