alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

JOSE ANTONIO TORRES, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D13-3488 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed December 7, 2016. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Highlands County; Angela J. Cowden, 

Judge. 

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Alisa Smith, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Jose Antonio Torres, pro se. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

 In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we 

ordered supplemental briefing to address the legality of the sentence imposed upon the 

revocation of Jose Torres's probation. We also stayed proceedings in this matter 

pending the Florida Supreme Court's review of Austin v. State, 158 So. 3d 648 (Fla. 1st 
- 2 - 

DCA 2014), review dismissed, 181 So. 3d 1187 (Fla. 2016). We now lift the stay, affirm 

the revocation of probation, and affirm the sentence without prejudice to Torres's right to 

challenge the legality of the sentence by motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).

 Affirmed. 

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Justin Wayne Parris v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00502-CR

Trial court case number: 1352699

Trial court: 338th Judicial District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and brief 

concluding that the above-referenced appeal is frivolous, along with a cover letter and 

form motion sent to the appellant for access to the appellate record. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Appellant, acting pro se, has 

filed a motion requesting access to a copy of the record to prepare a response to counsel’s 

brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 315, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 

Appellant has further filed a motion for leave to file his pro se Anders response and a 

motion for extension of time to file his pro se Anders response for ninety days from the 

date he receives a copy of the record.

We grant the motion requesting the record and order the trial court clerk, no later 

than 10 days from the date of this order, to provide a copy of the record, including the 

clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and any supplemental records, to the pro se

appellant. The trial court clerk shall further certify to this Court, within 15 days of the 

date of this order, the date upon which delivery of the record to the appellant is made. 

Finally, we grant appellant’s motions for leave to file a pro se Anders response 

and for an extension in part. Appellant’s response to his counsel’s Anders brief shall be 

filed within 45 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 13, 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOE LINCEN MESA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 21 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of May, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1200

JUDY M. INGRAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Elizabeth V. Hallanan,

Senior District Judge. (CA-99-108-2)

Submitted: August 29, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore R. Dues, Jr., THEODORE R. DUES, JR., L.C., Charleston,

West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States

Attorney, Michael L. Keller, Assistant United States Attorney,

Charleston, West Virginia; Thomas J. Marshall, Acting Managing

Counsel, Legal Policy, Steven F. Hirsch, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Judy M. Ingram appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to Defendant in this action alleging employment

discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Ingram v.

Henderson, No. CA-99-108-2 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 24, 2000). 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

Certification of the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NYMEX Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James E. Newsome as Principal Executive Officer of the Company, and Kenneth D. Shifrin, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    JAMES E. NEWSOMEName:

James E. NewsomeTitle:

President & CEO (Principal Executive Officer)Date: November 9, 2007By:

/s/    KENNETH D.
SHIFRINName:

Kenneth D. ShifrinTitle:

Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)Date: November 9, 2007
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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


         In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  Superclick,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-QSB/A for the quarter  ending  January 31, 2005 as filed
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"),  I, Todd M. Pitcher,  Interim Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  April 27, 2005                   /s/ Todd M. Pitcher
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name: Todd M. Pitcher
                                         Title: Interim Chief Financial
                                                Officer and Principal Accounting
                                                Officer


                                       38
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00283-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.T., A 

CHILD

----------

FROM THE 43RD DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. CV13-1349

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant C.T. attempts to appeal from an order holding her in contempt 

and suspending commitment. On September 26, 2016, we notified C.T. of our 

concern that we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the contempt 

order is not appealable. See In re Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 

913, 915 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding). We informed C.T. that 

this appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless she or any party 

desiring to continue the appeal filed a response with the court by October 6, 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

2016, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. 

Although we received a response to a previous jurisdiction letter that we had 

sent, we have not received a response to the September 26, 2016 inquiry.

“Decisions in contempt proceedings cannot be reviewed on appeal 

because contempt orders are not appealable, even when appealed along with a 

judgment that is appealable.” Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d at 915

(quoting Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

2001, pet. denied) (en banc op. on reh’g); see Tex. Animal Health Comm’n v. 

Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. 1983). Contempt orders involving 

confinement may be reviewed by writ of habeas corpus; contempt orders that do 

not involve confinement may be reviewed only through mandamus. Office of 

Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d at 916; see Tracy v. Tracy, 219 S.W.3d 527, 

530 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DELIVERED: December 1, 2016
**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 Annual Report of Radale Imports, Inc. (the “Company”) on
        Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ken Swanson,
        Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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)  Information
        contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:
                  July 14, 2008*/s/
                  Ken Swanson*Ken
                  SwansonChief
                  Financial Officer
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Radale Imports, Inc. and will be retained by Radale Imports, Inc. and furnished
        to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-3467NI

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * On Appeal from the United v. * States District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. * Robert Wade , * [To be published] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 11, 1999 Filed: May 21, 1999

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

T his is a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §2255 in which the appellant, Robert Wade, seeks to have his conviction on drug charges set aside. The conviction was previously affirmed on direct appeal. See United States v. Wade , 1992 W.L. 301953 (8th Cir., October 23, 1992) (No. 92-2173).
Mr. Wade's major arguments have to do with the performance of his counsel at the time of sentencing. This performance, he says, was deficient, and the deficiency1 The Hon. John A. Jarvey, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

2 The Hon. David R. Hansen, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. -2- was such as to undermine confidence in the outcome of the sentencing proceedings. Both a Magistrate Judge 1 and the District Court 2 have written thorough opinions painstakingly examining each of the arguments advanced by Wade. We have nothing of substance to add, and see no reason to encumber the record with still another deta iled discussion of the parties' contentions. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed on the basis of the District Court's opinion.
In addition to the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and certain other arguments, defendant makes an Ex Post Facto Clause argument, claiming that Guidelines §3B1.1, as it existed at the time of the commission of the offense, did not allow consideration of relevant conduct in connection with a defendant's role in the offense. This argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Larson , 110 F.3d 620, 627 n.8 (8th Cir. 1997).
Affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 10(a)



 EXHIBIT 10(a) 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 







 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Statement of Additional
Information and to the use of our reports: (1) dated April 10, 2013, with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio, and (2) dated April 22, 2013, with respect
to the financial statements of the subaccounts of the WRL Series Annuity Account, included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 17 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4, No. 333-24959) under the Securities Act of 1933 and related WRL Freedom
Wealth Creator®. 
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP 
 Des Moines, Iowa 

April 22, 2013
EXHIBIT 32

# CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of Montana Mining Corp. (Registrant) for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (Report), I, Ruairidh Campbell, chief executive officer and
chief financial officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

|(1) |  | This Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
                    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material
                    respects, the financial condition of Registrant at the end of the period covered
                    by this Report and results of operations of Registrant for the period covered by
                    this Report.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Ruairidh Campbell

Ruairidh Campbell

Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer

October 27, 2005

This certification accompanies this
Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for
the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This
certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing 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 this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written
statement required by §906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained
by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6260

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARCUS PLATER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR99-559, CA-01-1489) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Plater, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Marcus Plater seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. To the extent that Plater challenges the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b) (West 1999 & Supp. 2001), this claim fails as we have upheld the constitutionality of § 841(b). United States v. McAllister , 272 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Plater , Nos. CR-99-559; CA-01-1489 (D. Md. Jan. 18, 2002). 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
Coos

No. 83-100

#### The State of New Hampshire v. John P. Boswell

August 27, 1984

*Gregory H. Smith,*attorney general *(Loretta S. Platt,*assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State.

*Philip R. Waystack, Jr.,*of Colebrook, by brief and orally, for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

Counsel for the defendant advised the court that the State had withdrawn the habitual offender petition filed against his client. *461Before that withdrawal, the defendant had raised the issue of an indigent defendant’s right to appointed counsel at an habitual offender proceeding. The companion case of *State v. Cook,*125 N.H. 452, 481 A.2d 823 (1984), raised the same issue, and we have ruled on it by our opinion of even date. Counsel is not entitled to payment from public funds.

*Remanded.*
---

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 Online Innovation,
  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2004
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Chad
  D. Lee, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) 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.

|Date:                             | February 11, 2005 | 
|--------------------------------- | ----------------- | 
|                                  |                   | 
|                                  |                   | 
|/s/ Chad D. Lee                   |                  
|Chad D. Lee, President, Director, |                  
|Principal Executive Officer       |                  

---
Exhibit 10.5.3

                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     THIS SECOND  AMENDMENT  TO  EMPLOYMENT  AGREEMENT,  dated as of January 14,
2003,  is  by  and  between  InteliData  Technologies  Corporation,  a  Delaware
corporation and Alfred S. Dominick,  Jr. ("Executive") and amends the Employment
Agreement dated April 5, 1999, and previously  amended on April 5, 2002, between
InteliData and the Executive as follows:

     1.   Section  2 of  the  Employment  Agreement  shall  be  replaced  in its
          entirety by the following:

          "2. Term. The period of employment shall be from April 5, 1999 through
          April 5, 2004, unless sooner terminated as herein set forth."

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties have  executed  this SECOND  AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT  AGREEMENT  as of  the  fourteenth  day  of  January  2003.InteliData
Technologies Corporation

                                    By: /s/ Patrick F. Graham
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Patrick F. Graham
                                        Chairman, Compensation Committee of
                                         the Board of Directors

                                     /s/ Alfred S. Dominick, Jr.
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                     Alfred S. Dominick, Jr.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00032-CR

Oswaldo Aguirre

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1412036D)

December 1, 2016

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth