alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41156

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ANTONIO GONZALEZ-SALAZAR,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-475-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Antonio 

Gonzalez-Salazar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez-Salazar has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41156 Document: 00513080391 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
No. 14-41156

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-41156 Document: 00513080391 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
Order entered November 12 , 202 1

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 20 - 00386 - CR No. 05 - 20 - 00 416 - CR BASHON ANTHONY SHULER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee O n Appeal from the Cri minal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 18 - 31754 - J & F18 - 31753 - J O RDER T he se appeals were submitted o n October 27, 2021. After submission, it came to the Court ’ s attention th at the bill of costs is mi ssi ng from each of the clerk ’ s records. We ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file, within T EN DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER , sup plemental clerk ’ s records contain ing the bill of cost s in each case. In accordance with Texas Code ofCrimi nal Pro cedure article 103. 001, the bill of cost s shall be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost s . We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of thi s orde r to Da l las County District Clerk Felicia P itre and t o counsel for all parties.
/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK PRESIDING JUSTICE
I/58-/7

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 14-16-00499-CR

STYLE: Ex Parte Enrique P. Gomez

COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed

DATE: July 25. 2017 Publish: No

OFFENSE: Habeas Corpus

COUNTY: Chambers

TRIAL COURT: 344th District Court

TC CASE # 14571-B

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Ex Parte Enrique P. Gomez

APPELLANTS Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

K^/^3^7)

DATE: UVUeTh^^K ^Z 2Jl7

JUDGE: fPt Uuu^—

CCA#

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:.

PUBLISH:

i/y<«/7

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY MARSHALL,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-04-1932 LKK GGH PS

vs.

HOME DEPOT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On October 28, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed objections on

December 2, 2005, and they were considered by the district judge.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-01932-LKK -GGH Document 37 Filed 01/11/06 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

2

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed October 28, 2005, are

ADOPTED; and

2. The amended complaint is dismissed, with prejudice, against defendants Home

Depot, Timothy Lezistes, Marcisa Gudino, and Robert Wintermote.

DATED: January 10, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

mars1932.jo

Case 2:04-cv-01932-LKK -GGH Document 37 Filed 01/11/06 Page 2 of 2
6837

#### WILLIAMS v. RICKEMBAKER.

Magistrate — Appeal—-Default Judgment.- — Within five days after judgment by default magistrate may grant new trial. After that time defendant’s only remedy is to move in Circuit Court to have judgment set aside or suspended and new trial ordered upon satisfactory excuse for default. Under facts here appellant has shown no ground for relief.

Before Gary, J., Colleton,

July, 1907.

Affirmed.

Action- by Ellick Williams- against C. H. R-icbembaker andi W. G. Hidtt. From order on Circuit refusing to disturb judgment by default given by J. F. Bryon, magistrate, defendants appeal.

*468
      *Messrs. J. C. Hoitt*and /. *S.*Griffin, for appellants.

*Mr. Hiott*cites:' 19 S. C., 143; 27 S. C., 244; 46 S. C., 505; 64 S. C, 408; 65 S. C., 129.

*Messrs. Fishburne & Fishburne,*contra,

cite: 46 S. C., 505; 19 S. C., 143; 27 S, C., 146; Code of Proc., 368, 195.

April 1, 1908.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

The plaintiff recovered judgment by default in a magistrate’s, court against the defendant, Rickembaker, .as maker, and the defendant, Hiott, as indorser on a promissory note for forty-seven dollars. The defendant appealed on these grounds: *“1.*That the said magistrate was in error in waiting one week and more to write up his judgment in said cause and give defendant notice thereof. 2. That the said magistrate was in error in trying and determining the cause herein on a day of which the defendant had no notice whatever.”

The Circuit Oourt affirmed the judgment of the magistrate.

Until the expiration of five days from the rendering- of the judgment the magistrate has power to grant a new trial. After the expiration of that time the only remedy against a judgment by default in a magistrate’s court is under Section 368 of the Code of Procedure, which provides: “If the defendant failed to appear before the magistrate, and it is shown by the affidavits served by the appellant, or otherwise, that manifest injustice has been done, and he satisfactorily excuses his default, the Court ffiay, in its discretion, set aside or suspend judgment, and order a new trial, 'before the same or .any other magistrate in the same county, at such time and place, and on such terms, as the Court may deem proper.”

The report of the magistrate shows judgment was entered by default, 5th March, 1907, and on motion of defendants a new* trial was granted, and the 9th April wias fixed as the *469trial day. The defendants again made default. There was no showing before the Circuit Court by affidavit, or otherwise, that 'the defendants, did not have notice of the day of the seco-nd trial, or that they had suffered any other injustice or had any excuse for their default. Hence there was no g-round upon which the Circuit Court could set aside or suspend the judgment and order a mewl trial. *Doty*v. *Dwvall,*19 S. C., 149; *Lawrence*v. *Isear,*27 S. C., 244, 3 S. E., 222; *Speer*v. *Meschine,*46 S. C., 510, 24 S. E., 329.

The judgment of this Court is, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Vega-Atlantic Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Grant
Atkins, as President/Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer/Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby 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) 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: June 23, 2003                    /s/ GRANT ATKINS
                                       ______________________
                                           Grant Atkins
                                           President/Chief Executive Officer and
                                           Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011 (the Report) of TICC
Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Patrick F. Conroy, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (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 the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/ S / PATRICK F. CONROY                       
|Name: Patrick F. Conroy Date:
November 9, 2011
Case No. 13,824.

#### The TEMPEST.

[Cited in The Angelina Corning, Case No. 384. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
No. 44057.

#### Protests 516711-G, etc., of Mabarak Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

On the authority of Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Dear Mr. Kuna:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−4853). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) 

which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to 

proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation 

please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 1/4/16. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267–4549.

Sincerely,

/S/

Michael J. Cameron

Program Analyst
#### Commonwealth *v.*Markle, Appellant.

Submitted September 30, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*Joseph A.*Nicldeach, for appellant.

*Harry A. Heilman, Jr.,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

November 12, 1968:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Order affirmed.

Mr. Justice Musmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.

Mr. Justice Cohen did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2520 LKK JFM P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 13, 2005, this court issued findings and

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to file a

second amended complaint. On April 18, 2005, plaintiff filed his second request for an

extension of time to file a second amended complaint pursuant to the court’s order of February 1,

2005. Good cause appearing, the request will be granted. However, the April 13, 2005 findings

and recommendations will be held in abeyance. If plaintiff fails to timely file his second

amended complaint, the findings and recommendations will be forwarded to the district court for 

consideration.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 14 Filed 04/25/05 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

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s April 18, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint on or before May 31, 2005.

DATED: April 22, 2005.

/001

jenk2520.ext 

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 14 Filed 04/25/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

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

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2005 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Margulies, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Richard Margulies

Richard MarguliesChief Executive OfficerDated: March 7, 2006

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to East Coast Diversified Corporationand will be retained by East Coast Diversified Corporation and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Jane Doe, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 57]

—Order, Court of Claims, New York County (Gerard Weisberg, J.), entered July 20, 1993, which denied claimant’s motion for an order permitting her to file a late claim in accordance with Court of Claims Act § 10 (5) and (6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In her motion to file a late notice of claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (5), which permits a claimant under a legal disability to file a claim within two years after the disability is removed, plaintiff asserted that the notice of claim was not made within the statutory 90 day period because she was under a mental disability from the time her causes of action accrued until the present. After an evidentiary hearing held to determine plaintiff’s mental status during the 90 day period, the Court of Claims found that even if plaintiff was mentally disabled upon her discharge, by the summer of 1990 she was no longer disabled within the meaning of section 10 (5), since by that time she had been able to meet with an attorney, assist in the preparation of the claim and had gotten a job. Inasmuch as section 10 (5) is strictly applied *(see, McCarthy v Volkswagen of Am.,*55 NY2d 543), and even post-traumatic stress disorder is insufficient to support its application *(supra),*we agree that *219claimant’s failure to present her claim by filing it with the clerk of the court and serving the Attorney-General (Court of Claims Act § 11 [a]) by August 1992 resulted in failure to obtain subject matter jurisdiction over defendant, which may not be waived *(Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth.,*75 NY2d 721). Relief pursuant to section 10 (5) was therefore correctly denied.

The court also properly denied relief pursuant to section 10 (6), which permits late filing of a claim in the court’s discretion, since the plaintiffs causes of action were time barred *(see, Berger v State of New York,*171 AD2d 713, 716; *Muscat v State of New York,*103 Misc 2d 589) and the claims sounding in medical malpractice and negligence were also not legally viable *(Prusack v State of New York,*117 AD2d 729).

The unpublished Decision and Order of this Court entered herein on November 2, 1995 is hereby recalled and vacated. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
#### George B. Morgan et al., Appellants, v A.O. Smith Corporation et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[633 NYS2d 1013]

—In an action to recover damages for breach of warranty and fraud, the plaintiffs appeal (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered April 1, 1994, as granted the motion by the defendants A.O. Smith Corporation and A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc., pursuant to CPLR 3211, to dismiss the fourth cause of action of the complaint insofar as asserted against them, (2) from an order of the same court, entered April 7, 1994, which amended the order entered April 1, 1994, by adding words concerning the denial of the branch of the motion which was to dismiss the plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action which had been omitted from the order entered April 1, 1994, and (3) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered September 23, 1994, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination to dismiss the fourth cause of action.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered April 1, 1994, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered September 23, 1994, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered April 7, 1994, is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered September 23, 1994, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the branch of the order dated April 1, 1994, which granted the motion by the defendants A.O. Smith Corporation and A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc., to dismiss the fourth cause of action is vacated, that motion is denied, and the fourth cause of action is reinstated; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.

The court erred in dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for fraud because the defendants A.O. Smith Corporation and A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc., failed to establish that the supporting allegations do not only concern representations which were collateral or extraneous to the parties’ agreement *(see, Morgan v Smith Corp.,*221 AD2d 422 [decided herewith]). Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title18 of the United States Code), I, Benjamin Daitch, Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”), certifythat the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:      November 13,  2009 |   | /s/ Benjamin Daitch                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                             |   |                                               |
|                                                             |   | Benjamin Daitch                                    |
|                                                             |   | Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
# C_2007275EN.01002801.xml

| 16.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/28

---

Communication from the Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the basis of Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2007/C 275/12)

The Minister for Economic Affairs hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block G10 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).

Mijnbouwregeling

Staatscourant

With reference to the Directive 94/22/EC mentioned in the introduction and Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit a competing application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block G10 of the Dutch continental shelf.

Mijnbouwwet

Staatsblad

The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the above-mentioned Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to: De Minister van Economische Zaken, ter attentie van J.C. De Groot, Directeur Energiemarkt, ALP/562, Postbus 20101, 2500 EC Den Haag, Nederland.

Official Journal of the European Union

Applications submitted after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than twelve months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained from the following telephone number: (31-70) 379 77 62 (contact person: E.J. Hoppel).

---