alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00570-CR

Shawn L. SANDERS,

Appellant

v.

The State of 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR5452

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 3, 2014

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 

Acting pro se, appellant filed what appeared to be a notice of appeal in which he 

complained of a grand jury indictment. Subsequently, the trial court clerk filed a notice informing 

the court that no judgment exists in the underlying case. We therefore ordered appellant to show 

cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant’s 

counsel filed a response in which he explains that the underlying case is pending, and that no court 

action has taken place from which an appeal could be filed. 
04-14-00570-CR

Absent a few statutory exceptions that are inapplicable to this appeal, a criminal defendant 

may only appeal from a final judgment of conviction. See State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 

n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961). 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2 -
#### WHITE v. STATE.

No. 26846.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 24, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*143WOODLEY, Judge.

Charged with the sale of whisky in a dry area, appellant waived trial by jury and entered his plea of guilty before the court. The punishment was assessed at a fine of $200 and 30 days in jail.

The record as before the court without a statement of facts or bills of exception. The proceedings appear regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Filed 6/19/13 P. v. Winbush CA2/6 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION SIX 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

CHARLES C. WINBUSH, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B243657 

(Super. Ct. No. MA053800-01) 

(Los Angeles County) 

 Charles C. Winbush appeals from a judgment entered after an order 

revoking probation. We affirm. 

 Winbush was convicted of second degree commercial burglary upon his no 

contest plea. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The trial court sentenced him to the upper term of three 

years, but suspended execution of the sentence and granted probation. Winbush violated 

the terms and conditions of his probation. He tested positive for hydrocodone for which 

he did not provide a prescription, and he tested positive for marijuana. He did not 

complete court-ordered community service and did not enroll in required drug and 

domestic violence programs. The court revoked his probation. 

 We appointed counsel to represent Winbush in this appeal. After counsel's 

examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues. 
2 

 On December 17, 2012, we advised Winbush that he had 30 days within 

which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. 

We have not received a response. 

 We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Winbush’s 

attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) 

 The order is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

 GILBERT, P.J. 

We concur: 

 YEGAN, J. 

 PERREN, J. 
3 

Christopher G. Estes, Judge 

Superior Court County of Los Angeles 

______________________________ 

 Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Form 10-KSB of Avicena Group, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of their knowledge and belief, that:



| | 1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Belinda Tsao NivaggioliName: Belinda Tsao NivaggioliTitle: Chief Executive OfficerDate: April 15, 2008/s/ Michael J. SullivanName: Michael J. SullivanTitle: Acting Chief Financial OfficerDate: April 15, 2008


This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Brooks, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered September 22, 1988, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), assault in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the comments made by the prosecutor during summation does not warrant reversal. The comments complained of on appeal were not objected to during the trial and therefore the issue is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the comments were not improper *(see, People v Rawlings,*144 AD2d 500). Sullivan, J. P., Harwood, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 OR 15D-14 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Sidney C. Hooper, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of
Sutron Corporation;

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

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

4. The registrants other certifying officers 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 have: a) designed
such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared; b) evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): a) all significant deficiencies in the design
or operation of internal controls which could adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for
the registrants 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 registrants internal controls; and

6. The registrants other certifying officers and I have
indicated in this annual report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions
with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.




Date: March 30, 2005
By /s/ Sidney C. Hooper 		Sidney C. Hooper,
						Chief Financial
						Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 185 (Friday, September 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 57355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24415]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families


Office of Community Services; Grant to the National Association 
of Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs

AGENCY: Office of Community Services, ACF, DHHS.

ACTION:  Award announcement.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a noncompetitive grand award is 
being made to the National Association of Farmers' Market Nutrition 
Programs to initiate a Nationwide Farmers' Market Connections Campaign 
to serve low-income communities, limited resource farmers, and low-
income women and children who participate in the WIC Program.
    This one-year project is being funded noncompetitively because it 
is expected to provide valuable information useful to this Department 
and other practitioners regarding research and demonstration 
initiatives related to welfare reform and the well being of low-income 
children and families. The nationwide campaign will be piloted in four 
states, and will promote the development and coordination of farmers' 
markets and marketing services among federal, state and local agencies. 
The cost of the project is $33,000 for one year.
    Contact for Further Information: Catherine Rivers, Administration 
for Children and Families, Office of Community Services, 370 L'Enfant 
Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Phone: 202-401-5252.

    Dated: September 18, 2000.
Donald Sykes,
Director, Office of Community Services.
[FR Doc. 00-24415 Filed 9-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1310 

KA 13-00123 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LAMAR O. BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID R. PANEPINTO

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M.

Wolfgang, J.), entered December 19, 2012 pursuant to the 2005 Drug Law

Reform Act. The order denied the application of defendant for

resentencing upon his conviction of criminal possession of a

controlled substance in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his

application for resentencing upon his 2004 conviction of criminal

possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law §

220.18 [former (1)]) pursuant to the 2005 Drug Law Reform Act (L 2005,

ch 643, § 1). We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied the

application for resentencing because defendant, at the time of his

application, was eligible for parole and thus was ineligible for

resentencing (see People v Mills, 11 NY3d 527, 534; People v Smith, 45

AD3d 1478, 1479). In any event, we further conclude that the court

providently exercised its discretion in determining that substantial

justice would have dictated denial of the application had defendant

been eligible for resentencing (see People v Dominguez, 88 AD3d 901,

901, lv denied 18 NY3d 882; People v Savinan, 59 AD3d 247, 247, lv

dismissed 12 NY3d 787; People v Flores, 50 AD3d 1156, 1156, lv

dismissed 10 NY3d 934).

Entered: January 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 31.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I,

I, Hector A. Veron, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form  10-QSB/A of Royal  Holiday
Mobile Estates;

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 annual
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  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  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  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;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors:

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 controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: September 22, 2003                  /s/ Hector A. Veron
                                      -------------------------------
                                         Hector A. Veron
                                         President/ CEO/Director
NO. 14

- 14

- 00379

- CV

In the Court of Appeals for the

FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ROSALINDA REYES

A PPELLANT

V

.

MEMORIAL HERMANN HEALTH SYSTEM D/B/A TIRR MEMORIAL

HERMANN

A PPELLEE

On Appeal from the

129th District Court, Harris County, Texas , Cause No

. 2013

- 35690

, The Hon. Michael Gomez, Judge Presiding

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLEE’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, Memorial Hermann Health System d/b/a TIRR Memorial

Hermann and files t his Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Appellee’s

Brief. In support of this Motion, Appellee shows unto this Court the following:

A.

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an interlocutory appeal brought by Appellant pursuant to the

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 51.014(a)(9), which allows an ACCEPTED

14-14-00379-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

2/11/2015 12:37:05 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKinterlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss under Texas Civil

Practice & Remedies Code Section 74.351 (b). The Appellant is Rosalinda Reyes

and the Appellee is Memorial Hermann Health System d /b/a Memorial Hermann

TIRR.

B.

ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

2. No rule limits the time within which to file this Motion to Extend.

Tex. R. App. P. 38.6.

3. The Court may extend time to file Appellee’s Brief under the

authority of Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(d).

4. Appellee ’s Brief is due on or about February 1 6 , 2015

.

5. Ap pell ee requests an additional thirty ( 3 0) days from the current due

date in which to file its brief, extending the time to March 16 , 2015

.

6. Appellee has previously requested two extensio ns to file its brief.

7. An extension of time to file Appellee ’s Brief would allow Appellee to

prepare its brief with the thoughtful consideration and deliberation that t his

important matter requires.PRAYER

8. For these reasons, Appellee asks the Cou rt to grant an extension of

time to file its Brief to March 16 , 2015

.

Respectfully submitted,

LUCCIA & EVANS, L.L.P.

By /s/ Frank N. Luccia

Frank N. Luccia

SBN 12664400

fnluccia@luccia

- evans.com

Mary M. Wagner

SBN 20659920

mmwagner@luccia

- evans.com

8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1450

Houston, Texas 77046

(713) 629

- 0002 / Fax (713) 629

- 0004

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that we have conferred with counsel for Appell ant regarding

the foregoing motion and opposing counsel is unopposed.

/s/ Frank N. Luccia

____ _ Frank N. Luccia /Mary M. WagnerCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

Motion to Extend Time to File Appellee’s Brief has been forwarded to counsel for

Appellant via [ ] fac simile, [ ] certified mail, return receipt requested, [ X ] e

- service

on the 11 th day of February

, 201 5 as follows:

Kevin Adley

Gilbert Garza

ADLEY LAW FIRM LTD, LLP

1421 Preston St.

Houston, TX 77002

/s/ Frank N. Luccia

_____ F rank N. Luccia /Mary M. Wagner
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JASON HAGOOD, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-828) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 24, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Margaret A. Chamberlain, CHAMBERLAIN LAW FIRM, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Regan A. Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jason Hagood pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base (crack) and less than 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). He was sentenced to a term of 324 months imprisonment. Hagood challenges the district court’s decision to give him an adjustment for being an organizer or leader of the conspiracy when similarly situated co-defendants did not receive such an adjustment. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual§ 3B1.1(a) (2002). We affirm. The district court determined that Hagood was an organizer or leader based on information in the presentence report that described Hagood as one of a few conspirators who were involved in the conspiracy early, received cocaine from the leader, Robert Barnes, processed the cocaine into crack, and distributed it through runners. Hagood also recruited at least one person into the conspiracy. Hagood did not dispute this information, but arguedthat he should not receive the adjustment because certain codefendants who were portrayed in the presentence report as being at the same level as he within the conspiracy did not receive an adjustment for having an aggravated role. In his view, the court’s decision ignored the goal of uniformity in sentencing. An adjustment is mandatory if a factor validly supports it. United States v. Ashers , 968 F.2d 411, 414 (4th Cir. 1992). The information before the court amply supported the leader adjustment3 in Hagood’s case. Assuming, arguendo, that a co-defendant should have, but did not, receive the same adjustment, Hagood may not challenge his sentence on that ground. The guidelines mandate that adjustments be based on the defendant’s conduct, not on the sentence imposed in another case. We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. ¤1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Silicon Graphics International Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 24, 2011 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Mark J. Barrenechea, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James D. Wheat, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ¤1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated: August 29, 2011





/s/ M ARK J. B ARRENECHEA/s/ JAMES D. WHEATMark J. BarrenecheaCEO and PresidentJames D. WheatChief Financial Officer








This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Silicon Graphics International Corp. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.