alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NUMBER 13

- 2 3

- 00 284

- CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

ELYJAH ABDUAL FORD

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On a ppeal from the 2 3rd District Court

o f Wharton County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

This cause is before the C ourt on a ppellant ’ s motion to dismiss th is appeal

. The

motion was signed by both counsel and the appellant . We find the motion meet s the

requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) that appellant and attorney

must sign a written motion to dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a).2 Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted. W ithout passing on the merits of the

case

, t he appeal is hereby dismisse d

. H aving dismissed the appeal at appellant ’ s request,

no motion for rehearing will be entertained

.

CLARISSA SILVA

Justice

Do not publish.

T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed on the

12 th day of October , 202 3

.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 392

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located

at West 920 Riverside Avenue in Spokane, Washington, as the ‘‘Thomas

S. Foley Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’, and the

plaza at the south entrance of that building and courthouse as the

‘‘Walter F. Horan Plaza’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 8, 1999

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Mr. GORTON) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at West 920 Riverside Avenue in Spokane,

Washington, as the ‘‘Thomas S. Foley Federal Building

and United States Courthouse’’, and the plaza at the

south entrance of that building and courthouse as the

‘‘Walter F. Horan Plaza’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 392 IS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF THOMAS S. FOLEY FEDERAL

2 BUILDING AND UNITED STATES COURT3 HOUSE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building and United

5 States courthouse located at West 920 Riverside Avenue

6 in Spokane, Washington, shall be known and designated

7 as the ‘‘Thomas S. Foley Federal Building and United

8 States Courthouse’’.

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg10 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

11 States to the Federal building and United States court12 house referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be

13 a reference to the ‘‘Thomas S. Foley Federal Building and

14 United States Courthouse’’.

15 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WALTER F. HORAN PLAZA.

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—The plaza located at the south en17 trance of the Federal building and United States court18 house referred to in section 1(a) shall be known and des19 ignated as the ‘‘Walter F. Horan Plaza’’.

20 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg21 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

22 States to the plaza referred to in subsection (a) shall be

23 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Walter F. Horan Plaza’’.

24 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

25 This Act takes effect on March 6, 1999.

Æ
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 annual report of Pretium Packaging, L.L.C. and Pretium Finance, Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2012 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George A. Abd, the Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





|   |                                                                                                                                      
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Companies.




Date: November 30, 2012





/s/  George A. AbdGeorge A. AbdChief Executive Officer
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 Secure America Acquisition Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Harvey L. Weiss, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Company.




May
      14, 2009
              
              /s/ Harvey L. WeissHarvey
      L. WeissPrincipal
      Executive Officer
----

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 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                as of the dates and for the periods explained in the                report. |
|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Michael Garin       | /s/                Wallace Macmillan   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                                   |                                   |
|   | Michael                Garin           | Wallace                Macmillan       |
|   |                                   |                                   |
|   | Chief                Executive Officer | Chief                Financial Officer |
|   |                                   |                                   |
|   | May                4, 2006             |                                   |

----
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 E0 06 2 . J OSEPH DI NGLER v . HEATHER MOORE.
Ap p el l an t J o s ep h Di n g l er’ s Em erg en cy M o t i o n i s DENIED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## June 27, 2017

06/27/2017
#### Will of Baksic: Everts and others, Appellants, vs. Baksic, Respondent.

*October 11*

November *16, 1948.*

*447
      *Fr'ancis H. Wendt*and *Kenneth L. Greenquist,*both of Racine, for the appellants.

*George Grats,*attorney, and *Robert E. Grats*of counsel, both of Milwaukee, for the respondent.

Martin, J.

In this case the will of Mrs. Baksic was properly executed by the testatrix and by the witnesses but was denied probate because A. W. Ponath, one of the subscribing witnesses, did not testify. The evidence shows that Ponath was attorney for the proponent and that he refused to testify and was not compelled to do so.

The probate of a will is a matter of public interest and in this case public policy dictated that the trial court should take positive action in bringing the proper evidence before the court in order to make a determination of the issue presented. *Guardianship of Reeve*(1922), 176 Wis. 579, 186 N. W. 736; *Estate of Staab*(1918), 166 Wis. 587, 166 N. W. 326; *Will of Rice*(1912), 150 Wis. 401, 136 N. W. 956, 137 N. W. 778; *Will of Dardis*(1908), 135 Wis. 457, 115 N. W. 332.

The controversy in this case has not been fully tried and in accordance with sec. 251.09, Stats., the court orders a new trial be held and the testimony of A. W. Ponath be taken *448so that the real controversy herein will be fully tried and determined with finality. *Will of Burns*(1933), 210 Wis. 499, 246 N. W. 704.

*By the Court.*— Judgment and order reversed, and 'cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Broadfoot, J., took no part.
## 1997 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-12-1997 

# M a r t in v . D a n a C or p
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ocke t 96-1746

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1997

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1997 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" M a r t in v . D a n a C or p " (1997). 1997 D e cisio n s . P ape r 216. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1997/216Filed July 1, 1997

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 96-1746 KEEFE M. MARTIN, Appellant

v.
DANA CORPORATION On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 95-cv-08024) Present: SLOVITER, Chief Judge , BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, LEWIS, and McKEE, Circuit Judges

. ORDER A majority of the active judges having voted for rehearing en banc in the above appeal, it is
O R D E R E D that the Clerk of this Court vacate t he opinion filed June 12, 1997 and list the above casefor rehearing en banc at the convenience of the court. By the Court,
/s/ Dolores K. Sloviter Chief Judge Dated: July 1, 1997
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDUARDO LARIN, on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA, NA,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-57288

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-01062-DMSJMA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 8, 2015

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Eduardo Larin appeals the district court’s dismissal of his putative class

action complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

Reviewing dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds de novo, Dougherty v. City of

FILED

JUN 04 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2011), and denial of leave to amend for abuse

of discretion, Salameh v.Tarsadia Hotel, 726 F.3d 1124, 1129, 1133 (9th Cir.

2013), we affirm.

1. Larin’s claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair

Competition Law, and False Advertising Law are evaluated under a “reasonable

consumer standard” by which he must “show that members of the public are likely

to be deceived.” Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Larin alleges no affirmative

misrepresentations in connection with Bank of America’s overdraft protection

program (“ODP”) that would likely deceive a reasonable consumer. The

statements concerning the benefits of ODP are qualified, and Bank of America

disclosed that its general policy is “to provide availability of deposited funds nextday,” though there is always a “risk that a deposited check may not clear.” Larin

deposited a $7,500 check, and the balance was made available to him by the next

day. When the check failed to clear, under the terms of ODP, Bank of America

covered payments made against that check with Larin’s linked credit card account

and charged him agreed-upon credit card fees. While Larin argues that enrollment

in ODP increased his risk of incurring fees because Bank of America would have

otherwise held his deposit up to eleven business days, the allegations in the

2
complaint demonstrate that ODP worked in the manner disclosed in the Deposit

Agreement. Therefore, there were no affirmative misrepresentations that support

Larin’s claims.

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this case

with prejudice, given Larin’s multiple opportunities for amendment. United States

ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011)

(“[T]he district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad

where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” (quoting Ascon Props.,

Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989)). 

AFFIRMED.

3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7274

BERNARD MCFADDEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

KIMBLE CAMPBELL; MICHAEL JEROME PARKER; JOSEPH

SYLVESTER; ARNOLD SINGLETON; RONEY HAMMION,

Plaintiffs,

versus

BENJAMIN MONTGOMERY, Deputy Director of South

Carolina Department of Corrections; DOUG

CATOE, Director of South Carolina Department

of Corrections; ROBERT PLEMONS, Dairy Program

Assistant; JOHN H. CARMICHAEL, Warden; ANTHONY

J. PADULA, Warden; MARK A. LAWHORN, Captain;

RANDOLPH DUBOXE, Institutional Grievance Coordinator; MARY LOWDER, Counsel Substitute,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-00-201-3-24BC)

Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Bernard McFadden appeals the district court’s order dismissing

in part his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is

not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act
and 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 on Form 10-Q of Advant-e Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), the undersigned,
Jason K. Wadzinski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies 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) 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: May 17, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ James E. Lesch     
|                    |  |     |  | James E. Lesch         
|                    |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
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





The
undersigned, Carl Tedeschi, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of
Cardio Vascular Medical Corp. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards
set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




Date:
      August 13, 2010.
              By:
              /s/
      Carl TedeschiName:
              Carl
      TedeschiTitle:
              President,
      Chief Executive Officer andDirector
      (Principal Executive Officer)





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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1508

RONALD SATISH EMRIT; NICOLE ROCIO LEAL-MENDZ,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

CHEAP-O-AIR; HOTEL ALISIOS BAVARO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:13-

cv-00803-PWG)

Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Satish Emrit; Nicole Rocio Leal-Mendz, Appellants Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Satish Emrit and Nicole Rocio Leal-Mendz appeal 

the district court’s order dismissing their civil complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Emrit v. Cheap-O-Air, No. 8:13-cv-00803-PWG (D. Md. Apr. 

1, 2013). 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.

AFFIRMED
* 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

March 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41067

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HOMERO VEGA-MARTINEZ, also known as Omero Vega-Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:05-CR-79-1

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

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Homero VegaMartinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.