alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20738 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

VICTOR HUGO ALEGRIA, also known as Alexis Gonzalez Quintero, also known as Alexis Gonzalez Quinteros, also known as Alexis Gonzalez, also known as Kelvin J. Camps, also known as Alexis Quintero

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 15

- 20748

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

VICTOR HUGO ALEGRIA

,

Defendant

- Appellant

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

- CR

- 401

- 1 USDC No. 4:10

- CR

- 421

- 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20738 Document: 00513722873 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016No. 15

- 20738 c/w No. 15

- 20748

2 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge s

. PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Hugo Alegria

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). Alegria h a s 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 s present 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 S ARE DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. Case: 15-20738 Document: 00513722873 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08136]


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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

[Docket No. SSA-2014-0053]


Social Security Ruling, SSR 15-1p; Titles II and XVI: Evaluating 
Cases Involving Interstitial Cystitis (IC); Correction

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling; Correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Social Security Administration published a document in the 
Federal Register of March 18, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-05680, on page 
14217, in the first column, in section ``D,'' in the second sentence, 
delete ``and dimethyl sulfoxide''.

Faye I. Lipsky,
Director, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance Social Security 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-08136 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08373]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


 In the Matter of eCareer Holdings, Inc.; Order of Suspension of 
Trading

April 8, 2015.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
eCareer Holdings, Inc., (``eCareer'') because of questions regarding 
the accuracy of publicly available information about the company's 
operations, including questions about the accuracy of statements in its 
filings regarding eCareer's use of investor proceeds for working 
capital, its sales of securities in unregistered transactions and 
compensation received by eCareer's CEO and chairman, including 
information in eCareer's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 
2014, Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2014, and Form 10-Q 
for the period ended December 31, 2014. Its stock is quoted on OTC 
Link, operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc., under the ticker: ECHI.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of eCareer.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on 
April 8, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 21, 2015.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08373 Filed 4-8-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
CERTIFICATIONS

I,   David Campbell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10QSB of Safe Idea, Inc.;

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 quarterly
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 annual 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 (or persons performing the equivalent function):

         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.

Dated: May 12, 2005
By:
---------------------------------------------
David Campbell - Chief Executive Officer and Director

<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                        0001002137
<NAME>                        SWISSRAY INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     1,281,297
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              2,668,872
<ALLOWANCES>                               219,993
<INVENTORY>                                7,332,401
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           11,929,381
<PP&E>                                     7,284,410
<DEPRECIATION>                             1,001,370
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             23,511,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      14,944,865
<BONDS>                                    15,750,947
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   140,062
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,894,670)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               23,511,189
<SALES>                                    17,295,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           17,295,882
<CGS>                                      13,529,301
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              13,529,301
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           19,345,939
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         5,638,928
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (21,177,901)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (21,177,901)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (832,849)
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (22,010,750)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (3.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (3.24)




</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George Hancock,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ GEORGE HANCOCK
George Hancock
Interim Chief Executive Officer
March 10, 2004
##### 



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 Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James
K. Hilger, Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the Company. /s/ JAMES K. HILGER
James K. Hilger
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
September 3, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 59 DB 2020 (No. 43 RST 2020)

:

ALLISON HEDGES BACELLI : Attorney Registration No. 306981

:

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

FROM INACTIVE STATUS : ( Out of State )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30 th day of June

, 2020 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated June 24

, 2020

, is approved and it is ORDERED that

Allison Hedges Bacelli

, who has been on Inactive Status

, has never been suspended or

disbarred, and has demonstrated that s he has the moral qualifications, competency and

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is,

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of th e Bar of this Commonwealth. The

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall

be paid by the Petitioner

.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00134

- CR

JANET RENEE WALKER, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 24969

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Janet Renee Walker has attempted to appeal from h er conviction for driving while
intoxicated. On our review of the clerk’s record, we noted that the trial court certifi ed this to be

a negotiated plea agreement case in which Walker has no right of appeal. By letter dated July 11, 2013, we informed app ellant of this potential jurisdictional defect and afforded her ten days in which to respond. Walker responded, through counsel, but her response contains nothing to persuade us that we have jurisdiction over this appeal.
In a negotiated plea agreement ca se, i.e., one in which the defendant entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment assessed does not exceed that recommended by the State and agreed to by the defendant, a defendant may appeal only (1) issues that were raised by
a written motion that was both filed and ruled on before trial or (2) after obtaining the trial court’s permission to appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). Further, this Court is required to dismiss an appeal if, as in this case, the trial court’s certification indicates that there is no right of appeal. See i d

. Because the trial court certified that Walker has no right of appeal and because the record
before us contains nothing to suggest that the certification is incorrect, see Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), we must dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 25.2(d).3 We , therefore, dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Jack Carter Justice
Date Submitted: July 25, 2013 Date Decided: July 26, 2013
Do Not Publish
## In t he Court of Appeals Second Appell ate District of Texas

at Fo rt Wort h

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00292

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 462nd District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 15

- 04712

- 431
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chi ef Justice Sudderth 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### L.P. AND 

### R.P., C HILDREN2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mot her appeals the trial court ’ s order awarding permanent joint managing conservatorship of her young children , L.P. and R.P. , 1 to their paternal grandparents and giving Mother possessory conser vatorship subject to v arious res trictions. See Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. § § 153.19 1

– .193 (posses sory conservatorship), § 263.405 (appeal of
final order in suit initiated by Department of Family and Prot ective Services).
Mother ’ s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion t o withdraw as
counsel and a brief in support of t hat motion

. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967); In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). Counsel ’ s brief and
motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a p rofessional evaluation o f the

rec ord demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. at
741

– 42, 87 S. Ct. at 1399. N either Mother nor the Department of Family and
Protective Services has filed a response. As the reviewing appell ate court, we must independentl y examine the record to
decid e whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal in this case is
frivolous. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re
K.R.C. , 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. Ap p.

— El Paso 2009, no pet.). Havin g carefully
reviewed the re cord and the Anders brief, we agree with counsel that the appeal is

1 At the time of the trial, L.P. was eight years old and R.P. was four years old

.3

frivolous. See K.R.C. , 346 S.W.3d at 619. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support Mother ’ s appeal. Accordin gly, we aff irm the trial court ’ s j ud gment. We deny Mother ’ s counsel ’ s motion to withdraw in light of P.M. because the brief does not show “good cause” other than counsel ’ s determination that an appeal

wo uld be frivolous. 520 S.W.3d at 27 (“[A]n Anders m otion to wi thdraw brought in
the c ourt of appeals, in the abs ence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature.”); In re A.M. , 495 S.W.3d 573, 582 n.2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet s . deni ed) (noting that since P.M. was handed down, “most courts o f appeals affirming paren tal termination orders afte r receiving Anders briefs have denied the
attorney ’ s motion to withdraw”). The supreme court has held that in cases such as this, “appointe d counsel ’ s obligations [in the supreme court] can be s atisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the s tandards for an Anders brief.” P.M. , 520
S.W.3d at 27

– 28.

/ s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice
Delivered: January 14, 2021
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 12 , 20 1 2

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 1 2

- 00 191

- CR

____________

BRIAN BUTLER , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1331775



### MEMORANDUM OP IN ION

Appellant entered a guilty plea to robbery with bodily injury . In accordance with

the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to

confinement for two yea rs in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice . Appellant filed a pro se notice of appe al. We dismiss the appeal.

The trial court entered a certification of the defendant ’ s right to appeal in which the

court certified that this is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has no right of appeal. See

T ex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial cou rt ’ s certification is included in the record on2

appeal. See T ex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports the trial court ’ s certification.

See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Jamison

.
Do Not Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60427 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus STANLEY LONGINO, Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:00-CR-163-ALL

_______________________________________

November 1, 2001 Before POLITZ, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Stanley Longino appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Longino asserts that: (1) in light of testimony by a Government witness indicating that his prior felony conviction order had been amended, the evidence was insufficient to show that he was a convicted1 United States v. Ortega Reyna , 148 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 1998)
.
2 Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9); Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993). 2 felon; and (2) the district court erred in overruling his objection to the introduction of the prior felony conviction order on the ground that it had been amended. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government , 1 the testimony regarding the amended order indicated that Longino’s original order of conviction was amended to reflect that he had earned probation by successfully completing the Regimented Inmate Discipline Program. That testimony did not negate the value of the original order as evidence that Longino had been convicted of a felony offense. Accordingly, Longino’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without merit. Longino has not briefed, and therefore has abandoned, his assertion that the district court erred in overruling his objection to the introduction of the original felony conviction order on the ground that it had been amended. 2 The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
& b 8

6 œ

> œ>œ> œ.>

Allegro

f

œ œ

>œ>

#œ.

>

nœ œ

>œ>œ> œ> œ>

For ceremonial version,

jump to m.100, 2nd beat

fi

J

œ

^ ‰ ‰ Œ. 8

5

8

13

8

21

8

29

& b Œ j

œ

. œ

. œ

.

œ

. F

37 Str. Mute

 ̇. Œ J

œ

. œ

. œ

. œ.  ̇. 4

Œ j

œ

. œ

. œ

.

œ

. F

45

 ̇. Œ j

œ

. œ. œ

. œ. j

œ

.

‰ ‰ Œ. ‰ œ

.

œ

. œ.

& b Œ J

œ

. œ

. œ

. œ

.  ̇. j

œ ‰ ‰ Œ. 53 3

œ

.

œ

.

œ

. œ. ‰ œ. œ. œ. œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ.  ̇. J

œ ‰ ‰ Œ. !

61

& b ‰ œ

. œ. œ. œ. œ. ! ‰ œ

. œ. œ. œ. œ. ‰ œ

. œ. œ. ‰ œ

. œ. œ j

œ

.  ̇. j

œ ‰ ‰ Œ.

Open

Œ j

œ

. œ

. œ

.

œ

.

69

p

 ̇. Œ J

œ

. œ

. œ

. œ.

& b  ̇. 4

Œ j

œ

. œ

. œ

.

œ

.

77

p

 ̇. Œ j

œ

. œ. œ

. œ. j

œ

.

‰ ‰ Œ. ‰ œ

.

œ

. œ. Œ J

œ

. œ

. œ

. œ

.  ̇. j

œ ‰ ‰ Œ.

& b

3

85

œ

.

œ

.

œ

. œ. ‰ œ. œ. œ. œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ.  ̇. J

œ ‰ ‰ Œ. !

93

‰ œ

. œ. œ. œ. œ. !

& b ‰ œ

. œ. œ. œ. œ. ‰ œ

. œ. œ. ‰ œ

. œ. œ j

œ

.  ̇.

fi

j

œ ‰ ‰

œ.

>

Ceremonial version,

from m.4

f

 ̇.

>

101

œ. œ.

>  ̇.

>

j

œ ‰ ‰ œ

- œ œ œ. œ.

& b œ. œ.  ̇. jœ ‰ ‰

œ.

>  ̇.

>

109

œ. œ

- œ œ œ. œ. œ ‰ œ

- œ- j

œ

- œ. œ. œ. œ.  ̇. j

œ ‰ ‰ œ.

>

& b  ̇.

>

117

œ j

œ

> œ

>

j

œ

>  ̇.

> œ ‰ œ

- œ- j

œ

- œ. œ. œ. œ.  ̇. J

œ ‰ ‰ œ.

>  ̇.>

125

œ œ

> œ> œ>œ> œ>  ̇.

>

& b j

œ ‰ ‰ œ

>

j

œ

- œ.

> œ.> œ.> œ.> œ.

> œ

> œ>

ƒ 2

œ.

> œ

> œ>

2

œ

>

J

œ

> œ

> œ>

2

j

œ

v

‰ ‰ Œ.

ALWAYS READY, ALWAYS THERE

The Official Song of the National Guard Bureau Words and Music by

CW4 David A. Myers

 40th Army Band, VTARNG

2nd Bb Trumpet Dedicated to the Men and Women, Soldiers and Airmen of America's National Guard
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R. Martin Kelly,
Chief 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ R. MARTIN KELLY

R. Martin Kelly
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 25, 2003