alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0004021 11-AUG-2014 11:30 AM

SCPW-13-0004021 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I DAVID T. FLEMING, Petitioner,
vs. THE HONORABLE RHONDA I.L. LOO, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, Respondent Judge, and STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CR. NO. 06-1-0570(1)) ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of Respondent State of Hawai ' i’s motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on August 5, 2014, the document attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that the petition for a writ of mandamus was dismissed by order entered on August 5, 2014, and, therefore, the motion is moot. See Wong v. Board of Regents, Univ. of Haw. , 62 Haw. 391, 394, 616 P.2d 201, 203(1980) (the mootness doctrine encompasses the circumstances that destroy the justiciability of a case previously suitable for determination). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is dismissed as moot. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, August 11, 2014. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark BELIDOR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-14719

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 30, 2008.

Richard C. Klugh, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Kathleen M. Williams, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Kathleen M. Salyer, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Mark Belidor (“Belidor”) appeals his sentence of 226 months imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). On appeal, Belidor argues that the district court erred by sentencing him as an armed career criminal under § 924(e) because: (a) his prior convictions for resisting arrest with violence did not meet the statutory definition of “crimes of violence,” as required by the statute, and (b) the government did not *925plead and prove to a jury the specific circumstances of his prior convictions.

We are precluded from reviewing an alleged defect, even for plain error, when a party has invited the error. *United States v. Harris,*443 F.3d 822, 823-24 (11th Cir.2006). “The doctrine of invited error is implicated when a party induces or invites the district court into making an error.” *Id.*

Because Belidor stated at his sentencing hearing that he agreed with his classification as an armed career criminal, he invited the error of which he now complains, and, thus, we are precluded from reviewing the alleged error. Therefore, we conclude Belidor is entitled to no relief and we affirm his sentence.

AFFIRMED.
|   | (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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                              |                        |
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| Date:  November 9, 2010 | /s/ Thomas B. Akin          |
|                              | Thomas B. Akin              |
|                              | Principal Executive Officer |
|                              |                        |
|                              |                        |
| Date:  November 9, 2010 | /s/ Stephen J. Benedetti    |
|                              | Stephen J. Benedetti        |
|                              | Principal Financial Officer |
H. R. 175

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

An Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, to authorize the Federal Bureau of Investigation to obtain certain telephone subscriber information.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIRED CERTIFICATION.

Section 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended

to read as follows:

‘‘(b) REQUIRED CERTIFICATION.—The Director of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower

than Deputy Assistant Director, may— ‘‘(1) request the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his

designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director)

certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication

service provider to which the request is made that—

‘‘(A) the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized foreign

counterintelligence investigation; and ‘‘(B) there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person or entity to whom the

information sought pertains is a foreign power or an agent

of a foreign power as defined in section 101 of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801); and

‘‘(2) request the name, address, and length of service of

a person or entity if the Director (or his designee in a position

not lower than Deputy Assistant Director) certifies in writing

to the wire or electronic communication service provider to

which the request is made that—

‘‘(A) the information sought is relevant to an authorized

foreign counterintelligence investigation; and

‘‘(B) there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that communication facilities registered in

the name of the person or entity have been used, through

the services of such provider, in communication with—

‘‘(i) an individual who is engaging or has engaged

in international terrorism as defined in section 101(c)

of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or clandestine intelligence activities that involve or may involve

a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;

or

‘‘(ii) a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power

under circumstances giving reason to believe that the

communication concerned international terrorism as
H. R. 175—2

defined in section 101(c) of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act or clandestine intelligence activities

that involve or may involve a violation of the criminal

statutes of the United States.’’.

SEC. 2. REPORT TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEES.

Section 2709(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended

by adding after ‘‘Senate’’ the following: ‘‘, and the Committee on

the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee

on the Judiciary of the Senate,’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<PAGE>   1


                                   EXHIBIT 3.2
                           AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAWS OF
                        HAWAII NATIONAL BANCSHARES, INC.
                             DATED JANUARY 23, 1996

         At the meeting of the Board of Directors of Hawaii National Bancshares,
Inc. ("Bancshares") held on January 23, 1996, it was unanimously carried to
delete in its entirety Section 2.2 - "Qualification of Directors" in Bancshares'
Bylaws which read, "Any adult may be elected or appointed as a director of the
corporation if the individual will not have attained age 72 prior to the
commencement of the term of office for which elected or appointed; however, such
age limitation shall not apply to the individuals serving as the initial
Directors of the corporation."

         All subsequent sections, Section 2.3 - "Term of Office" through Section
2.15 "Manifestation of Dissent," shall be renumbered sequentially as Section 2.2
- "Term of Office" through Section 2.14 - "Manifestation of Dissent."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet and Statement of Income and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000805297
<NAME> KRUPP INSURED PLUS-II LTD PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       6,461,841
<SECURITIES>                               197,526,633<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,029,363
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,771,629<F2>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             212,789,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,760
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                   211,493,356<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,281,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               212,789,466
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,366,468<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,710,268<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,656,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         12,656,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                12,656,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F6>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F6>
<FN>
<F1>Includes the following investments: Participating Insured Mortgages ("PIMs")
$152,929,361 & Mortgage-Backed Securities ("MBS") $44,597,272
<F2>Includes the following prepaid acquisition fees & expenses of $5,214,310 net of
accumulated amortization of $6,954,567 and prepaid participating servicing of
$1,557,319 net of accumulated amortization of $2,208,277
<F3>Represents total equity of General Partners & Limited Partners of $(155,589)
and $211,648,945
<F4>Represents interest income on investments in mortgages & cash
<F5>Includes $1,746,477 of amortization related to prepaid fees & expenses
<F6>Net income allocated $379,686 to the General Partners & $12,276,514 to the
Limited Partners.  Average net income per unit of Limited Partners interest is
$.84 on 14,655,512 units outstanding.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

March 30, 2016

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Thursday, April 21, 2016

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from    F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will consider and act upon the following in open session: *Secretaryof Labor v. The American Coal Company,*Docket Nos. LAKE 2011-701, et al.**(Issues include whether the Judge erred by not requiring that the Secretaryprove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amounts of proposed penaltiesbased on special assessments were appropriate.)

 

 

Any person attending this meeting who requires specialaccessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.    Subjectto 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel
Exhibit 32



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 Quarterly Report of Admiral Financial Corp., Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Wm. Lee Popham, President and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 results of operations of the Company.



Dated: May 12, 2010





|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|/s/ Wm. Lee Popham                         
|Wm. Lee Popham President                   
|Admiral Financial Corp.                    
|                                           
|                                           
|/s/ Wm. Lee Popham                         
|Wm. Lee Popham Principal Accounting Officer
|Admiral Financial Corp.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.48


                                                            NATIONAL CITY BANK
                                                            MIRACLE MILE OFFICE
NATIONAL CITY.                                              655 21st Street
                                                            Vero Beach, FL 32960


                                 July 16, 2007


Mrs. Maria F. Caldarone
Homes by Calton, LLC
2050 40th Avenue #1
Vero Beach, Florida 32960

               RE:   BUILDER LINE OF CREDIT REVISED COMMITMENT
          THIS COMMITMENT SUPERSEDES ANY AND ALL PREVIOUS COMMITMENTS

Dear Ms. Caldarone:

We have completed our review and have approved the following modifications:

        >       A decrease of the maximum availability of the line of credit
                from $6,500,000.00 to $4,790,000.00
        >       Beyond the two additional allocations on lot 134 and lot 135 in
                Pointe West, there shall be no other allocations until review
                date.
        >       Next review date January 1, 2008.
        >       Further disbursements for existing allocations may only be
                advanced with sale agreement and 10% down payment, subject to
                final acceptance by Bank. In any event, total disbursement is
                not to exceed actual costs to complete.
        >       A renewal fee of $13,970.83 is due at signing.

All terms, conditions and covenants of the Security Instruments, and of the Note
and any Advance Notes evidencing the indebtedness secured thereby, and of the
original Commitment Letter, along with all subsequently issued commitment
letters, shall remain in full force and effect.

Thank you for your continued business, and please call on us if you have any
questions or additional banking needs.


                                             Very truly yours,
                                             NATIONAL CITY BANK


                                             By: /s/ Alex Nall
                                                 -------------------------
                                                 Alex Nall, Vice President
                                                 Relationship Manager

<PAGE>

Homes by Calton, LLC
July 10, 2007
Page 2


The undersigned accepts the foregoing Commitment and all its terms, conditions
and requirements and agrees to cause the loan to be made in accordance with all
terms, conditions and requirements and within the time specified by this
Commitment.


AS TO BORROWER:
HOMES BY CALTON, LLC



By: /s/ Maria F. Caldarone                                  7/16/07
----------------------------------            ----------------------------------
Maria F. Caldarone, Manager Member            Date


AS TO GUARANTOR:
CALTON, INC.
A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION


By: /s/ Maria F. Caldarone                                  7/16/07
----------------------------------            ----------------------------------
Maria F. Caldarone, Executive                 Date
Vice President
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00142-CR

FREDDIE SCHMIDT APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Freddie Schmidt attempts to appeal from his conviction for 

violation of civil commitment requirements for sexually violent predators. The 

trial court’s certification of Appellant’s right to appeal states that this “is a pleabargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(a)(2). On April 9, 2012, we notified Appellant that this appeal could be 

dismissed unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant filed a pro se response

that does not present grounds for continuing the appeal and that contains a 

request for appointed counsel on appeal.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure are clear that in a plea-bargain 

case, an appellant may appeal only those matters that were raised by written 

motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s permission to 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Because the trial court’s certification 

reflects that Appellant has no right of appeal, we deny Appellant’s request for 

appointment of counsel as moot and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 10, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          25,706
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             141
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,275
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    434,140
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        508,083
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (7,138)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,032,834
<DEPOSITS>                                     871,448
<SHORT-TERM>                                     7,175
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             15,642
<LONG-TERM>                                     21,775
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,461
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,333
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,032,834
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,341
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,967
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    52
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,360
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,831
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,448
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,912
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               2,897
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,314
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,768
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,850
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,850
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.53
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,403
<LOANS-PAST>                                       905
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,196
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  5,029
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 7,520
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      419
<RECOVERIES>                                        37
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,138
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,367
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          4,771
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-21100 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS ANTONIO PALACIOS, also known as Luis A. Castro-Palacios, also known as Juan Ramon Palacios-Palacios, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-108-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - February 14, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Luis Antonio Palacios appeals his conviction following a guilty plea for illegal presence in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues for the first time on appeal that the indictment was defective because it failed to allege specific intent, general intent, or an actus reus. Palacios acknowledges that the specific-intent issue is foreclosed and that he raises the issue on appeal only to preserve it for Supreme Court review. All of Palacios’No. 99-21100 -2- contentions on appeal are foreclosed by controlling Fifth Circuit precedent. See United States v. Guzman-Ocampo , 236 F.3d 233, 237-39 (5th Cir. 2000)(finding sufficient an indictment’s allegations of general intent); United States v. ToviasMarroquin , 218 F.3d 455, 456-57 (5th Cir.)(holding that § 1326 does not establish a status offense that improperly punishes defendant in absence of an actus reus), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 670 (2000); United States v. Trevino-Martinez , 86 F.3d 65, 68-69 (5th Cir. 1996)(holding that § 1326 does not require proof of specific intent). Accordingly, Palacios’ conviction and sentence
are AFFIRMED.