alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Filed 5/17/24 P. v. Me ndez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAYMOND RICHARD MENDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant. C099553

(Super. Ct. No. STKCR202013902)

D efendant Raymond Richard Mendez pled guilty to two counts of voluntary

manslaughter and one count of evading a police officer and admitted various

enhancements in exchange for a stipul ated sentence of 27 years 8 months in prison

.

Defendant’s a ppointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no legal issues and ask ing

this court to independent ly review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436. Having done so , we affir m.

BACKGROUND

Defendant and his codefendant went to a park in Stockton where a gang fight was

about to start . Once the victims arrived, defendant walked through the park to a victim’s

car. Defendant quickly fired into th at victim’s car , and one or more of the other victims2

returned fire. Two victims died. When defendant was spotted by officers, he was driving

erratically while speeding and throwing things out of the car window.

The operative complaint charged defendant with two counts of murder, one count

of attempted premeditated murder, shooting at a vehicle, being a felon in possession of a

firearm, criminal street gang activity, and evading a peace officer

. It alleged special

circumstances for the murders and various enhancements

. F inally, it alleged defendant

had a strike and a serious felony conviction.

Defendant pl ed guilty to two counts of voluntary manslaughter and one count of

evading a police officer. He admitted using a firearm, a strike, and a serious felony

conviction. In exchange, the trial court dismissed the remaining counts and

enhancements. In keeping with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to

27 years 8 months in prison and imposed restitution and various fines and fees

.

DISCUSSION

We appointe d counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening

brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to People v. Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d

436, requesting the court to review the record and determine whether there are any

arguable i ssues on appeal. Counsel advised d efendant of the right to file a supplemental

brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief, and he has not done so.

After independently reviewing the record, we find no arguable error that would

result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

MESIWALA

, J.

We concur:

RENNER, Acting P. J.

BOULWARE EURIE , J.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 134767 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134767 COA: 266805 Lenawee CC: 05-011519-FC JAMES JOSEPH GRABIEC, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 24, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0117 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 24, 2008

Clerk
|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                               
|View History: Annual                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                         
|View History:                                                                
|                                                                             
|New Mexico Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted in Colorado (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                             
|                                                                             
|New Mexico Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted in Colorado (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 5,517 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 6,288  | 6,425  | 6,213  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with Wdesk from Workiva-->
<!--Copyright 2022 Workiva-->
<!--r:af7fe5af-8d06-40f9-b5d7-89f60641f10a,g:b6ec3514-f4fb-479b-b53c-85ed0dc398fb-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:pvh="http://www.pvh.com/20220322" xmlns:xbrli="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.pvh.com/20220322">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2021" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2021/dei-2021.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="pvh-20220322_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="pvh-20220322_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="DocumentandEntityInformationDocument" roleURI="http://www.pvh.com/role/DocumentandEntityInformationDocument">
        <link:definition>0001001 - Document - Document and Entity Information Document</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
  <xs:element id="pvh_CoverPageAbstract" abstract="true" name="CoverPageAbstract" nillable="true" xbrli:periodType="duration" substitutionGroup="xbrli:item" type="xbrli:stringItemType"/>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6643

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

DANIEL J. BROWN, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00016-NKM-RSB-1; 

3:13-cv-80559-NKM-RSB) 

Submitted: August 23, 2018 Decided: August 28, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Daniel J. Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Daniel J. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is 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 Brown 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 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20737 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MIGUEL ALBERTO MONTERROZA

- CALDERON, also known as Miguel Alberto Monterosa, also known as Miguel Alberto Monteroza Calderon, also known as Miguel Monterroza Calderon , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 438

- 1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mig uel Alberto
Monterroza

- Calderon 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). Monterroza

- Calderon has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 28, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20737 Document: 00513774286 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2016No. 15

- 20737

2 record r eferenced therein , as well as Monterroza

- Calderon ’ s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-20737 Document: 00513774286 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2016
#### Ex parte GLASS.

No. 23883.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 22, 1947.

J. V. Patterson, of Decatur, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The charging part of the complaint, upon which this proceeding was based, reads as follows: “I, Ed Smith, do solemnly swear that I have good reason to believe, that Bill Glass is about to commit an offense against my person or my property, to-wit: that he has on numerous occasions threatened my property, and had now threatened to do me bodily harm with a gun; against the peace and dignity of the State.”

After a hearing thereon, relator was, by the justice of the peace sitting as a magistrate, required to enter into a peace bond in the sum of $2,000 and was committed to jail until he gave such bond. Relator, being unable to make the bond, sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the judge of the district court, claiming that he was illegally restrained of his liberty. After a hearing on the writ, the amount of the bond was reduced to $1,000 and relator was remanded to jail for one year, or until the required bond was made.

From this order, notice of appeal was given to this court.

By the affidavit of the sheriff it is shown that relator is now and has been continuously since May 20, 1947, confined in jail.

The pivotal question here presented is the sufficiency of the complaint to warrant the judgments entered.

A peace bond proceeding is instituted and rests, primarily, upon an oath of some person that an offense is about to be committed or is threatened. Art. 79, C.C.P. Here, the affiant to the complaint swears only that he has “good reason to believe” that an offense is about to be committed, Nowhere does the affiant state, in connection with his “good reason to believe,” that he, the affiant, “does believe.” We have repeatedly held that a complaint based only upon the affiant’s “good reason to believe” *47that an offense has been committed is insufficient to charge that the offense has been committed. Branch’s P.C., Sec. 478. Cook v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 492, 132 S.W.2d 404; Adkins v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 287, 167 S.W.2d 1029; Betels v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 368, 168 S.W.2d 499.

Believing that the complaint is insufficient to meet the demand of Art. 79, C.C.P., in the particular mentioned, the judgments remanding the relator to the custody of the sheriff are hereby reversed and relator is ordered discharged from custody thereunder.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission ■of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)              
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History:                                               
|                                                            
|Oklahoma Natural Gas Processed in Texas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                            
|                                                            
|Oklahoma Natural Gas Processed in Texas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | 16,462 | 18,595 | 18,455 | 17,361 | 15,054 | 13,946 | 10,593 | 9,830  | 44,654
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 29     | 0      | 12,743 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6925]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 311

[Docket ID DOD-2012-OS-0027]

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation; Correction

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On March 16, 2012, the Department of Defense published a 
direct final rule titled Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation. This rule 
corrects a system identifier error in the amended text.

DATES: Effective May 25, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Toppings, (571) 372-0485.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 16, 2012, the Department of Defense 
published a direct final rule titled Privacy Act of 1974; 
Implementation. Subsequent to the publication of that direct final 
rule, Department of Defense discovered that the system identifier 
``DMDC 13'' in Sec.  311.8(c)(17) should have read ``DMDC 11''.

Correction

    In the final rule (FR Doc. 2012-6167) published on March 16, 2012 
(77 FR 15587-15588), make the following correction:

Sec.  311.8  [Corrected]

0
On page 15588, in Sec.  311.8, in the first column, in paragraph 
(c)(17), ``DMDC 13, Investigative Records Repository'' should read 
``DMDC 11, Investigative Records Repository''.

    Dated: March 19, 2012.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2012-6925 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BRIAN KABLITZ

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 17

- 3347

[ July 5, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; David French , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502017CA009692XXXXMB(AJ)

.

Brian Kablitz, South Bay, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Gayla Grant, Assistant

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER

, M AY and C IKLIN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated this 10th day of November, 2003.







                                                  /s/ Albert R. Rietheimer
                                                 ---------------------------
                                                      Albert R. Rietheimer
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                             and Treasurer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. and will be retained by Bancorp Rhode
Island, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF 18 U.S.C.
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Applied Molecular Evolution, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Lawrence E. Bloch, M.D., J.D., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of 18 U.S.C., 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

/s/ Lawrence E. Bloch, M.D., J.D.

Lawrence E. Bloch, M.D., J.D.
Chief Financial Officer
May 6, 2003