alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion filed May 12, 2022



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No s . 11

- 21

- 00138

- CR & 11

- 2 1

- 00 1 43

- CR

__________ HIGINIO LOMBRANO GARCIA , Appellant V
. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 70 t h District Court Ect or County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . A

- 18

- 1699

- CR & A

- 18

- 1700

- CR

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The jury convicted Higinio Lombrano Garcia of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon

. The jury found the enhancement allegations to be true and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprison ment for sixty years in each count

. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly and ordered that the sentences run concurrently. W e affirm

.2 Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professiona lly and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is without merit and frivolous

. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief , a copy of the motion to withdraw , and a copy of both the clerk’s record and t he reporter’s record. Couns el advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 68

. Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W .3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. Appellant subsequently filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief, and this court has considered Appellant’s contentions. In addressing an Anders brief and a p ro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause t o the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record and have found no reversible error; therefore , we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist

. 1

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw , and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM
May 12, 2022 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trott er , J., and Will iams , J.
February 8, 1957

No. 60497.

#### Nixon Nitration Works *v.*United States,

protest 230144r-K.

Plaintiff's application for rehearing granted.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roy Harper, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 931]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered December 15, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

We reject the People’s contention that the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether the testimony of the prosecution’s rebuttal witness was collateral *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *see, People v Sellers,*168 AD2d 583; *People v Johnson,*144 AD2d 490). The trial court improperly permitted the prosecution to call as a rebuttal witness its paralegal who testified, *inter alia,*that a defense witness made statements in her presence to an Assistant District Attorney that he sold drugs with the defendant and that, after the shooting in this case, he and the defendant, who was not present at the shooting, returned to the scene of the crime armed with guns. This testimony was an improper attempt to impeach the credibility of a defense witness with regard to collateral matters *(see, People v Beniquez,*215 AD2d 678, and the cases cited therein). Moreover, the rebuttal testimony concerning the defendant’s possession of a gun after the shooting and the defendant’s involvement in drug sales was highly prejudicial at a trial in which the evidence of defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Miller, J. P., Altman, Gold-stein and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### Michelle NICHOLS, an individual; Antonio Sanchez, an individual; Anna Christine Lizarraga, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AZTECA RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-35579.

D.C. No. CV-96-01879-JDS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 16, 2001.

Decided July 16, 2001.

*695Before REINHARDT, WARDLAW, and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Michelle Nichols and Anna Christine Lizarraga (collectively “Appellants”)1 brought this action against their former employer, Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., alleging, among other claims, sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD”). Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of Azteca on all claims.

On appeal, both Nichols and Lizarraga challenge the district court’s factual findings and legal conclusions regarding the existence of a hostile work environment; Azteca’s liability for the alleged harassment; and related evidentiary rulings. Nichols challenges the district court’s factual findings and legal conclusions regarding her alleged retaliatory discharge.2

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the factual findings at issue have ample evidentiary support and are not clearly erroneous. *See Ellison v. Brady,*924 F.2d 872, 875-76 (9th Cir.1991). In light of these findings, we affirm the judgment in favor of Azteca for the reasons stated by the district court.

We reject Appellants’ contention that the district court erred by excluding certain witness testimony. The proffered expert testimony bordered on a legal con*696elusion, and its exclusion was neither an abuse of discretion nor prejudicial. The proffered pattern and practice testimony was unconnected in time, place and actor to Appellants, and its exclusion was not an abuse of discretion.

We have discretion to award damages, attorneys fees, and single or double costs for bringing a frivolous appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 38; 28 U.S.C. § 1912. We decline to award such damages here as Appellants presented a colorable factual and legal basis for their appeal. *See McConnell v. Critchlow,*661 F.2d 116, 118 (9th Cir.1981).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is inappropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. We address the claims of Appellants’ co-plaintiff, Antonio Sanchez, in an opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum disposition. *See Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc.,*256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir.2001).

2

. Appellants do not appeal the portion of the district court's judgment denying their claims for quid pro quo sexual harassment, wage discrimination, negligent supervision, and negligent retention.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Coalresources of the Russell Fork basin in Kentucky and Virginia /**
 
Report | Plates: 0105
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:348
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000958140
 
July 27, 2018
Exhibit 32.2







CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




(18 U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of SwissINSO Holding Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief, that:




(1)           The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  April 15, 2011


/s/ Manuel de Sousa


Manuel de Sousa


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SwissINSO Holding Inc. and will be retained by SwissINSO Holding Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Galena dolomite

Decorah formation

Quimbys Mill member

Platteville formation

Galena dolomite

Decorah formation

Quimbys Mill member

Platteville formation

Galena dolornte

Decorah formation

Quimbys Mill member
Platteville formation

660 FEET OR MORE FROM KNOWN ORE BODIES
150:

GENSLER ORE BODY

KITTO ORE BODY

= 180,
ame ane
100-4) 100+]
re a Fi
2 2 fi
Z 50 “2 z oP
4 H g fs
ey = eo
20 24
5 Ec =
3 e_ kx le, _, MES Gboos¢
2 : : : —=
° c BSC ta | SS .— |
18 — a
‘LEAD LEAD LEAD

10 100 10044
8 Gi §
z z 2 so
z é z

°

—

THICKNESS, IN FEET

_—

=
0 10 20 4080 82
NUMBER OF ORILL HOLES STUDIED

150° = 150:
ae IRON IRON
1 7 4
100-5
iS)
1 |
50-| |

THICKNESS, IN FEET

Ie on

THICKNESS, IN FEET

4 '

Nis) >

=
7

—

0 10 20 30

NUMBER OF DRILL HOLES STUDIED

g

4041

°
—

° Wks qf
5

_ HM
5

NUMBER OF ORILL HOLES STUDIED

SSSA

COMPARISON OF MINERALIZATION IN DRILL HOLES CUTTING ORE WITH THAT IN
DRILL HOLES NOT NEAR KNOWN ORE, SOUTH OF SHULLSBURG

BULLETIN 1000 PLATE 7

EXPLANATION

PERCENT OF IRON, ZINC OR LEAD

UJ

ess than 0.1

U

O1to10

U

11050

6.1 or more

Percent of iron, zinc, or lead were estimated
by visual examination of dil cuttings for
sphalerite, galena, marcasite, and pyrite

‘The horizontal scale used was varied
50 that 100 percent of the holes in
any of the three examples cited was
alvays plotted at the same distance

Data was obtained from driling record of
Ealumet and Hecla Consolidated Copper Co.

369614 O—56 (Iu pocket) No. L
#### In the Matter of Madlyn Staffanell, Respondent, v Francisco Staffanell, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 74]

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 for an upward modification of child support, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), entered September 20, 1994, which granted the mother’s objections to an order of the same court (Braxton, H.E.), entered March 22, 1994, denying, after a hearing, *inter alia,*her application for an upward modification of child support, increased the father’s weekly child support obligation from the sum of $85 to the sum of $137.68, retroactive to January 26, 1993, and directed him to pay an additional $10 per week to satisfy arrears in the amount of $4,741.20.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contention on appeal, we find that the mother met her burden by establishing a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an upward modification in child support *(see,*Family Ct Act § 461 [b] [ii]). Where, as here, the movant has set forth specific increased expenses, as opposed to merely a general claim that the child’s needs have increased as the child matured or as a result of inflation, an upward modification is appropriate *(see, Matter of Adams-Eppes*
      *752
      *v Fulton,*195 AD2d 455, 456; *Zucker v Zucker,*187 AD2d 507, 509; *Matter of Miller v Davis,*176 AD2d 945). The Family Court correctly took into account the fact that the father’s income had significantly increased since the date of the last support order in 1987 *(see, Matter of Adams-Eppes v Fulton, supra; Matter of Gilzinger v Stern,*186 AD2d 652, 653; *Matter of Popp v Raitano,*167 AD2d 404, 405). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.
From: jpumanalists@me.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:05:48 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

John P Umana

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33325
----

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

|  | 1. | The                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                  15(d) of                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                  and |
|--|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | The                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  Mediware. |
|--|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated:  November                  6, 2007 | /s/                  T. Kelly Mann                                        |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                      |                                                                      |
|                                                      | T.                  Kelly Mann                                            |
|                                                      | Chief                  Executive Officer                                  |
|                                                      |                                                                      |
| Dated:  November                  6, 2007       | /s/                  Mark B. Williams                                     |   |
|                                                      |                                                                      |
|                                                      | Mark                  B. WilliamsChief                  Financial Officer |

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER - 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

LEXINGTON INSURANCE CO.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA SWANSON, 

Defendant.

No. C05-1614MJP

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS’

FEES AND COSTS

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Swanson’s motion for attorneys’ fees and

costs. (Dkt. No. 205.) Plaintiff Lexington opposes the request. (Dkt. No. 224.) Having considered

the parties’ papers, the Court GRANTS $4,200 in attorneys’ fees and $207.50 for costs related to the

deposition of Sharon Sobers.

On June 6, 2007, the Court awarded Defendant Swanson attorneys’ fees and costs in

conjunction with her motion to compel production of Lexington’s Defense Counsel Guidelines. (Dkt.

No. 188.) The Court directed Ms. Swanson to file a motion documenting the attorney time and other

costs incurred in bringing the motion. Ms. Swanson now requests that the Court award $6,560.90 in

fees and costs. Ms. Swanson’s attorney, David Beninger, states in a declaration that his rate is

$400/hr, that he spent 10.5 hours on the motion to compel, and that the cost of the deposition of

Sharon Sobers was $2,360.90. Lexington takes issue with Mr. Beninger’s hourly rate and the

amount of time spent on the motion. Lexington also argues that Ms. Swanson should not be able to

recover the full cost of the Sobers deposition because that deposition was taken for the purposes of

discovery, not for the purpose of developing evidence to support the motion to compel. Lexington

Case 2:05-cv-01614-MJP Document 256 Filed 07/16/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER - 2 

argues that the cost of the excerpted pages related to the Defense Counsel Guidelines issue was only

$207.50.

The Court concludes that Mr. Beninger’s $400 per hour rate and the 10.5 hours spent on the

motion to compel are reasonable. Thus, the Court awards $4,200 in attorneys’ fees. But the Court

agrees with Lexington that Defendant should not recover the cost of the entire Sobers deposition. 

Therefore, the Court awards only $207.50 in costs.

Lexington must pay Ms. Swanson $4,407.50 within ten (10) days of this order.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record. 

Dated: July 16th, 2007.

AMarsha J. Pechman

 United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01614-MJP Document 256 Filed 07/16/07 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 MINUTE ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PAUL SIMONDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

REIKO CALLNER, et al.

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-1887C

MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 

Coughenour, United States District Judge:

The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE by Friday, December 2, 2005 at 4:30

p.m. why the Court should not dismiss this action for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Pursuant to that Rule, the complaint must include a plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief. The Court directs that Plaintiff respond to this Show Cause Order by submitting an

amended complaint. While Plaintiff need not set forth a complete and convincing picture of the alleged

wrongdoing in this amended complaint, he must at least set forth enough details so as to provide

Defendants and the Court with a fair idea of the basis of the complaint. In particular, the Court directs

Plaintiff to identify clearly each of the defendants in this action and to make a short and plain statement of

Case 2:05-cv-01887-JCC Document 2 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 MINUTE ORDER – 2

the claim or claims against each defendant, showing that he is entitled to relief against that defendant. 

Failure to comply with this Order by December 2, 2005 at 4:30 p.m. will result in dismissal of this action

without prejudice.

DATED this 15th day of November, 2005.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk of Court

By /s/ C. Ledesma 

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01887-JCC Document 2 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BJ'S
WHOLESALE CLUB, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEETS FILED WITH THE FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JULY 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                          40,834
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    411,244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               513,140
<PP&E>                                         633,451
<DEPRECIATION>                                 192,910
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 965,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          401,838
<BONDS>                                          2,153
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           742
<OTHER-SE>                                     515,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   965,613
<SALES>                                      1,873,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,916,640
<CGS>                                        1,709,610
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,709,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               142,741
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,108)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 65,397
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,243
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,154
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,154
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53


</TABLE>