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

13-15-00501-CV

Doyle Wells, Sea Oats Investments I, L.P. f/k/a Lamkin Properties Limited Partnership 

and Quixote Dunes, Inc.

v.

Texas Department of Transportation

On Appeal from the

138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2008-03-1374-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 8, 2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41743

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAUL GUADALUPE PARKIN-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-632-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Raul Guadalupe 

Parkin-Hernandez 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). Parkin-Hernandez has not filed a 

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

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* 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

December 1, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41743 Document: 00513780588 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2016
No. 15-41743

2

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 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-41743 Document: 00513780588 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2016
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06881]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Parcel Return Service Negotiated Service 
Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Effective date: March 26, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
March 20, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Parcel Return 
Service Contract 6 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available 
at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2015-41, CP2015-53.

Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Requirements.
[FR Doc. 2015-06881 Filed 3-25-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00619-CR

Jesse FLORES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR1740

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2016

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, 

and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and 

agreed to by the defendant; Rule 25.2(a)(2) applies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). This court 

must dismiss this appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not 

been made part of the record under these rules.” Id. R. 25.2(d); see Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 

675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 
04-16-00619-CR

- 2 -

On October 13, 2016, we notified Appellant that this appeal would be dismissed under 

Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification showing that Appellant has the right of 

appeal was made part of the appellate record by November 14, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 

37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 

S.W.3d 174, 176 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). To date, no response has been filed. 

Absent an amended trial court certification showing that Appellant has the right of appeal, 

Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. See Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 613; Daniels, 

110 S.W.3d at 176. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
HonorableWeaver Mcore,~ Chairman Committee on State Affairs The Senate Austin, Texas

Dear Sir: OpinionNo. O-3311 Re: Constituti&alitg of S.B. 355 amending Art. 1269h,V.A.C.S., 'so
as to authorize creation of airport districts.

Pursuant to your requestwe have carefully consideredSenate Bill No. 355, copy of which bill is attached hereto.

This bill amends Sections 1 and 2 of House Bill No. 160, Acts of the First Called Session of the 41st Legislature, Chapter 83, Page 209, as amended byHouse Bill No. 216 of the Regular Session of the 47thLegislature. House Bill No. 160, Acts of the First Called Session of the 41stLegislature has been compiled inVernon's Annotated Civil Statutes as Article 1269h. House Bill No. 216 of the current sessionamends this only in that it removes the limitation of the size of airports. The bill under consideration, I.e., Senate Bill No. 355, further amendsArticle 1269h in that it seeks to authorize the establishmentand maintenance of airports by "anydesignated district within the county' and to au~thorizesuchdistrict to levy taxes and issuebonds therefor. As polnted out in our OpinionNo. O-3310 addressed to you, no constitutionalauthority exists for the levy of taxes by a district created for airportpurposes. For the reasons stated and under the authorities cited in that opinion,we beg to advise you that Senate Bill No. 355 is unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to confer the taxing powerupon a district created for the purpose of constructingand maintaining airports.Honorable Weaver Moore, Chairnmn, page 2 o-3311

Yours very truly

ATTORNEY GEHERAL OF TEXAS

By s/WalterR. Koch Walter R. Koch Assistant

WRK:RS:ac

APPRO'VED

APRIL 26, 1941 s/GroverSellers FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Approved Opinion CommitteeBy s/'BwB Chairman
Exhibit 12.2  Section 302 Certification  I, Andrew Keating, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Bank of Ireland;  2.Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and 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 company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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  (d)Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting;  5.The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company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 have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date: 31 March 2014Andrew Keating/s/Andrew KeatingName:
Andrew KeatingTitle:
Group Chief Financial OfficerBank of Ireland
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Capella Education Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J.
Kevin Gilligan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ J. Kevin Gilligan  
|J. Kevin Gilligan      
|Chief Executive Officer
|July 28, 2009          

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

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.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 23, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 23, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A0555. NICOLE WIERSMA v. JOSEPH CHERNAK.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed March 6, 2017 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-01517-CV WILLIE ARTHUR JACKSON, Appellant V. SHALANDA MESHELL JACKSON, Appellee On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-02736 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justi ce Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By postcard dated December 29, 2016, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated December 29, 2016, we informed appellant the docketing statem ent in this case was due. We cautioned appellant that failure to file the docketing statemen t within ten days might result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. By le tter dated January 31, 2017, we informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide ve rification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or to provide written documentation he had been found entitled to proceed without–2– payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further noti ce. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided the required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regardi ng the status of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b) (c).

161517F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
WILLIE ARTHUR JACKSON, Appellant No. 05-16-01517-CV V. SHALANDA MESHELL JACKSON, Appellee On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-02736. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered March 6, 2017.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of CloudMedical Doctor Software Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2014 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael De La Garza, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, That to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

By /s/ Michael De La Garza

Michael De La Garza

Chairmen, Chief Executive Officer, President

January 7, 2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40761

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

CARLOS ALBERTO PEREZ-DE LEON, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:14-CR-913-1 

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Following the entry of his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry, Carlos 

Alberto Perez-De Leon was sentenced to 66 months of imprisonment, based in 

part on a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for his 

prior conviction of the Texas offense of aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon under TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.02. Perez-De Leon argues for the first 

time on appeal that the district court plainly erred by characterizing his 2004 

 

* 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

December 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40761 Document: 00513783663 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2016
No. 15-40761

2 

conviction for the Texas offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon as 

an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) for the purposes of 

convicting and sentencing him under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Relying primarily 

on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), Perez-De Leon argues that 

the definition of a crime of violence in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which is incorporated 

by reference into § 1101(a)(43)(F)’s definition of an aggravated felony, is 

unconstitutionally vague on its face. He further contends that this court 

cannot apply § 16(b) in this case without violating due process. 

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance, urging that Perez-De Leon’s arguments are foreclosed by our 

recent decision in United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 

2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). The 

Government is correct that Gonzalez-Longoria forecloses Perez-De Leon’s 

facial vagueness challenge to § 16(b) as well as his challenge to our application 

of § 16(b) on due process grounds.1 See id. Accordingly, the motion for 

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternate motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED. 

 

1 The recent grant of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court on the issue 

whether § 16(b) is unconstitutional in light of Johnson in Lynch v. Dimaya, ___ S. Ct. ___, 

2016 WL 3232911 (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 15-1498), does not alter our analysis. This court is 

bound by its own precedent unless and until that precedent is altered by a decision of the 

Supreme Court. See Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986).

 Case: 15-40761 Document: 00513783663 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2016
Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We have issued our reports dated March 12, 2008accompanying the consolidated financial statementsand schedule and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting included in the Annual Report of Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. and its subsidiaries on Form10-K for the year ended December 30, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference ofsaid reports in the Registration Statements of Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. on Forms S-3 (FileNo.’s 333-86358 effective April 22, 2002, 333-48492 effective November 3, 2000, 333-95311 effective March 23, 2000,333-54562 effective February 2, 2001, 333-65428 effective July 24, 2001, and 333-73504 effective November 21,2001) and Forms S-8 (FileNo.’s 333-88928 effective May 23, 2002, 333-88930 effective May 23, 2002, 333-88932 effective May 23, 2002,333-16299 effective November 18, 1996, 333-49939 effective April 10, 1998, 333-124985 effective May 17, 2005,and 333-49965 effective April 10, 1998)./s/ GRANT THORNTON LLPMinneapolis, Minnesota
Exhibit 10.8


        GBS Capital Partners


        March 22, 2013


        Mr. Oscar Brito

        URBAN PROPERTIES, LLC 

        888 Brickell Key Dr., #1102 

        Miami, FL 33131


        Dear Mr. Brito:


        On April 13, 2012, you and we entered into a Cesión de Derechos y Acciones Contrato de Fideicomiso (the “Cesion”), whereby we assigned to you our rights to
        receive 9 specified condominium units being constructed at Chacabuco 1353, San Telmo, Buenos Aires, Argentina, and you agreed to pay us $750,000 in consideration of said assignment. Such consideration was to be paid in a first installment of $350,000 due on April 15, 2013, and a second installment of $400,000 due one year later. We had agreed on these due dates because the project promoter had advised us, and we in turn represented to you, that these units would be delivered during the
        fourth quarter of 2012 and because it was important to you to have sufficient time to sell these units so as to provide funds for the above payments. The units were not delivered at that time because of normal delays in the execution of the construction by part of the developer and project promoter, Estudio Peru, which has caused our representation to you to be inaccurate.


        In light of these circumstances, we agree that the due date for the first payment of $350,000 under the Cesion shall now be October 15, 2013, and that the due date for the second payment of $400,000 shall now due one year after the first payment, and you agree that you release us from any and all liability for the
        inaccuracy of such representation.


        We now represent to you that all of the units will be delivered to you by May 30th, 2013, and agree that, if they are delivered after that date, each of the new due dates shall be extended by a number of days equal to the number of days after that
        date that have elapsed when all of these units are delivered.


        If this is acceptable to you, please sign below and return the signed copy to me. 


        Sincerely yours,


        GBS CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.


        By: /s/ Luis Ernesto Rodriguez     

        Luis Ernesto Rodriguez 

        Managing Director


        ACCEPTED:


        URBAN PROPERTIES, LLC


        By: /s/ Oscar Brito     

        Oscar Brito 

        Manager


        Date: March 22nd, 2013
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION

(Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350)



The undersigned hereby certifies that
(i) the foregoing Annual Report on Form 10-KSB filed by March 31, 2005 for the year ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the
information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



|                     |  |                                              
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2005 |  | /s/ Ronald Leon Moore                        
|                     |  | Ronald Leon Moore                            
|                     |  | Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
|                     | 
|Date: March 31, 2005 |  | /s/ Stephanie Kent                           
|                     |  | Stephanie Kent                               
|                     |  | Senior Vice President, Controller            
|                     |  | & Principal Financial Officer