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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10786

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AMANDA SAYTAYPHA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-7-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Amanda Saytaypha

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). Saytaypha has filed a response. The record is not 

sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Saytaypha’s

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the

* 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

April 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10786 Document: 00513013017 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
No. 14-10786

claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 

F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).

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

reflected therein, as well as Saytaypha’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the 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.

2

 Case: 14-10786 Document: 00513013017 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 8, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 36 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 8- cr-6 01 77 -J IC-3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JULIO LENIS, a.k .a. Rafa el Dari o P en a, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 8, 2 01 0) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ro bi n J . Farn swo rth , app oi nt edco un se l fo r Ju li o Len is inth is di rectcri m in al ap pe al , has fil eda m ot io n t o wi th dr aw on ap pe al supp orte d b y a br ie f pr ep aredpu rs ua ntto Ander s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2 d 4 93 (19 67 ). Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re re co rdrev eal s tha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re rec or d re ve al s n o a rg uabl y m eri to rio us is su es , cou ns el ’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andLeni s’s co nv ic ti on s an d se nt en ces are AFFIRMED .

2
April 21, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JAMIL SAIFI, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00815-CV V.

CITY OF TEXAS CITY, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, City of Texas 

City, signed June 20, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have 

inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore order the 

judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for 

proceedings in accordance with the court’s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellee, City of Texas City.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6749

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH H. HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:06-cr-00163-REP-1; 3:13-cv-00768-REP)

Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph H. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph H. Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as an 

unauthorized, successive motion, and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment. The orders are 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1582

R. PHILLIP DUTO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION; NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97- 1024-MJG) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: March 14, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael E. Marr, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Glen D. Nager, Thomas M. Beck, JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court's order is marked as "filed" on March 26, 1999, the district court's records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on March 29, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court's decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: R. Phillip Duto appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in Duto’s action filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Duto maintains that the district court erred in finding that he did not create a genuineissue of material fact as to whether Westinghouse Electric Corporation’s stated reasons for his lay off were pretextual and that the lay off was actually motivated by age discrimination. See Vaughan v. MetraHealth Cos. , 145 F.3d 197, 202 (4th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed the formal briefs, the materials submitted inthe joint appendix, and the district court’s thorough and wellreasoned opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Duto v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. , No. CA-97-1024-MJG (D. Md. Mar. 29, 1999). * (J.A. at 417-59). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

INFORMATION SHEET BY COURT REPORTERS 

You are expected to file the reporter’s record by the original due date. See Tex. R. App. P.35. If 

a reporter determines that the due date may not be met, please advise the Clerk of the Court of 

Appeals immediately in writing, stating the reason and the due date by which the record will be 

filed. Generally speaking, for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two 

extensions from the original record due date, each extension not to exceed 30 days in regular 

appeals and 10 days in accelerated appeals for a total period not to exceed 60 days in regular 

appeals and 20 days in accelerated appeals.

 

Appellate Case Number: Trial Court Case Number: 

(1) Is there a Reporter's Record? Y N

(2) Are you the only court reporter involved in this appeal? Y N

If not, please provide the names and addresses of all other court

reporters below.

(3) Has the appellant requested that the reporter’s record be prepared or 

has the trial court ordered that the record be prepared?

 Y N

(4) Please select from the following options:

 A. The appellant has paid for the record.

 B. The appellant has made arrangements to pay for the record

 C. The appellant is appealing as indigent.

 D. The appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the

 record and is not appealing as indigent.

(5) Extension (fill out if extension is required for any reason other than payment)

I was unable to file the record in this appeal by ________. I expect the record 

in this appeal to be approximately _______ pages. The record covers 

_______days of testimony. I believe that I can file the record by _________. I 

ask that the court grant an extension until that time for filing the record.

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________

Court Reporter's Signature, Full Address, Email Address and Telephone Number: 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/17/2015 10:32:42 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
From: Hector.Ybanez@holcim.com

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 06/18/2010 12:05 PM Subject: Fw: ShortLongTermVariabilityModel.xls

Keith this is what i being talking about during our meeting RTI was assuming that variance of means is better because variances get smaller with time (or as sample size increases) but that is not true this attached spreadsheet show how variance change as sample size increases that is why proportional variance needs to be used

_____________________ Hector Ybanez Corporate Manager, Environmental 122 West Carpenter Freeway Suite 485 Irving, Texas 75039 Phone (214) 524

- 2814 Cell (972) 268

- 1139 Hector.Ybanez@holcim.com hybanez@gmail.com www.holcim.com/us This e

- mail is confidential and intended only for the use of the above named addressee. If you have received this e

- mail in error, please delete it immediately and notify us by e

- mail or telephone.

----- Forwarded by Hector Ybanez/USA/Holcim on 06/18/2010 11:00 AM

-----

Hector Ybanez/USA/ Holcim To William Mills 06/17/2010 cc 10:45 AM Subject ShortLongTermVariabilityModel.xlsfyi

_________ ____________ Hector Ybanez Corporate Manager, Environmental 122 West Carpenter Freeway Suite 485 Irving, Texas 75039 Phone (214) 524

- 2814 Cell (972) 268

- 1139 Hector.Ybanez@holcim.com hybanez@gmail.com www.holcim.com/us This e

- mail is confidential and in tended only for the use of the above named addressee. If you have received this e

- mail in error, please delete it immediately and notify us by e

- mail or telephone.

(See attached file: ShortLongTermVariabilityModel.xls)
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2

IEA Income Fund XII, L.P.

CERTIFICATIONS
Rule 13a-14

I, John Kallas, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IEA Income Fund
XII, L.P. (the Registrant);

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4.     The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (CCC), the
General Partner of the Registrant, and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we have:

(a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
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 quarterly report is being prepared; and

(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 report any change in the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal
control over financial reporting.

5.     CCCs other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrants auditors and the Audit Committee of Registrants Board of
Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the Registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
Registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: August 12, 2003

/s/ JOHN KALLAS
John Kallas
Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of CCC
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Timothy Sherlock, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of ARI Network Services, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;Dated: December 15, 2005         By:
EXHIBIT 31.1IEA Income Fund XII, L.P.Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATION     I, Dennis J. Tietz, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IEA Income Fund XII, L.P. (the“Partnership”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:                    (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and                    (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, based on our evaluation; and                    (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Partnership’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (thePartnership’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):                    (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’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 havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 11, 2007   /s/ DENNIS J. TIETZ   Dennis J. Tietz  President of CCC  (Chief Executive Officer)
# C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

Thirteenth District of Texas CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

April 1, 2015

Hon. A. Peter Thaddeus Jr.

121 N. 10th Street
McAllen, TX 78501

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Keith C. Livesay

517 W. Nolana

Brazos Suites No. 9
McAllen, TX 78504

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Frederick J. Castro

P.O. Box 3745
McAllen, TX 78504 Hon. Roger W. Hughes

Adams & Graham

P. O. Drawer 1429 Harlingen, TX 78551-1429

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Vicente Gonzalez Attorney at Law

121 North 10th Street
McAllen, TX 78501

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-12-00787-CV

Tr.Ct.No. 2011-DCL-05958-I Style: RAMIRO R. ARMENDARIZ v. STATE FARM LLOYDS AND DANIEL

LONGORIA

Dear Counsel:

Enclosed please find copy of an order issued by this Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:cc

Enc.

cc: Hon. J. Rolando Olvera Jr., 445 th District Court, Cameron County (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Eric Garza, District Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12

- 512V

Filed: May 30, 2013

Not for P ublication

*************************************

AUTUMN LAIDLAW, legal representative *

of a minor child, EMILY STONE, *

*

Petitioner

, *

* Attorneys ’ Fees & Costs Decision

v. * Based on Stipulation of Fact

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Verne E. Paradie, Jr.

, Lewiston, ME , for petitioner.

Lara A. Englund , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On May 3 0 , 2013 , the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case

.

I n accordance with t he General Order #9 requirement, petitioner ’ s counsel asserts that

petitioner d id not incur any cost s in pursuit of her petition

.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the special master's action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims's website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat.

2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be

made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that

is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitut e a

clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify

and move to redact such information prior to the document = s disclosure. If the special master, upon

review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special

master shall redact such material from public access.2

P etitioner informally submitted a n Application for Attorneys’ Fees and C osts to

respondent. During informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain items. Based

on these objections, petitioner now amend s her request for attorn eys’ fees and costs and request s

$ 1 1,453.45 in attorneys’ fees and costs . Respondent does not object to th e reduced amount. The

undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $ 1 1,453.45

, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a

check payable jointly to petitioner and P aradie, Sherman & Worden , P.A. in the amount of

$ 1 1,453.45

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant t o RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of

the court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 30, 2013 /s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
SCWC-18-0000636

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

STATE OF HAWAII, 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MANUEL SANDOVAL,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-18-0000636, CAAP-18-0000637, CAAP-18-0000638,

CASE NOS. 1PC161000563, 1PC151001156, 1PC141001782)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Ayabe, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant 

Manuel Sandoval=s motion for reconsideration filed on May 27, 

2021, and the record and files herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted. An 

amended opinion will be filed contemporaneously with this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 3, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Bert I. Ayabe

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000636

03-JUN-2021

08:19 AM

Dkt. 19 OGMR