alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 3/22/13 In re Elijah A. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 EIGHT

In re ELIJAH A., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

 B244702

 

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ELIJAH A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. GJ29670)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. 

Robin Miller Sloan, Judge. Affirmed. 

Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________________
2

The People filed a petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) alleging that 14-year-old 

Elijah A. had committed the offense of misdemeanor battery on a school employee. 

(Pen. Code, § 243.6.) At the adjudication, the victim, Sevan Sarkisyan, testified that he 

worked as a school district security officer assigned to Pasadena High School. During a 

school day, Sarkisyan was escorting Elijah to an assistant principal’s office when Elijah 

grabbed Sarkisyan’s forearm. The assistant principal also testified that Elijah grabbed 

Sarkisyan’s arm. Elijah held onto Sarkisyan’s arm for approximately 10 seconds. The 

juvenile court found that Elijah committed the alleged offense. The court ordered Elijah 

placed home on probation. 

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Elijah on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth the procedural and 

factual history of the case and requesting that we review the entire record on appeal for 

arguable issues. Our court notified Elijah by letter that he could submit any claims or 

arguments which she wished our court to consider. Elijah did not respond. 

We have independently reviewed the record on appeal, and are satisfied that 

appointed counsel fulfilled his duty, and that no arguable issues exist. (See People v. 

Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) “A battery is any 

willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” (Pen. Code, 

§ 242.) The statutory language is interpreted to require a “touching.” (See, e.g., People 

v. Mansfield (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 82, 87-88.) The “least touching” may constitute a 

battery; it need not be severe, nor cause bodily injury or pain or leave a mark; a defendant 

need not intend to injure, but only have the intent to commit the act. (Ibid.) The record 

supports the juvenile court’s finding that Elijah unlawfully touched a school employee. 
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

BIGELOW, P. J.

We concur:

RUBIN, J.

GRIMES, J.
EX PARTE Blake COFIELD

CR-16-0758

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
(LOGO) Bank of America

Bank of America Corporation
100 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28255

Tel 704.386.5000

Exhibit I

MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH THE USAP MINIMUM
SERVICING STANDARDS

February 28, 2000

As of and for the year ended  December 31, 1999,  except as  specifically  noted
below,  BA  Mortgage,  LLC and the  Mortgage  division of Bank of America,  N.A.
(collectively,  the "Company"), which together comprise an operating division of
Bank of America,  N.A.,  has complied in all material  respects with the minimum
servicing  standards  (the  "Standard(s)")  set  forth in the  Mortgage  Bankers
Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
("USAP").  During the year ended  December 31, 1999,  the Company's  Louisville,
Kentucky servicing operations  continued to experience  significant changes as a
result of the acquisition of Boatmen's National Mortgage, Inc. ("Boatmen's"). As
a result, certain instance of noncompliance with the Standards occurred.  Except
as  specifically  noted,  the  following  instance  of  noncompliance  have been
remedied and procedural enhancements continue to be implemented.

Standard:   Custodial   bank   account  and  related   bank   clearing   account
reconciliations shall be prepared within forty-five (45) calendar days after the
cutoff  date and  documented  reconciling  items  shall be  resolved  from these
reconciliations   within   ninety   (90)   calendar   days  of  their   original
identification.

Certain  reconciling  items which arose prior to December 31, 1999, and occurred
solely in custodial accounts related to certain real estate mortgage  investment
conduits   acquired  from  Boatmen's,   were  not  cleared  within  90  days  of
identification.  Management has taken appropriate  measures and has continued to
follow an action plan to resolve all outstanding  reconciling  items which arose
during the year ended December 31, 1999. All significant reconciling items which
arose from  January 1, 1999  through  December  31, 1999 have been  isolated and
reviewed by the Company,  and the Company  believes  these items will not have a
material impact on the status of any custodial accounts.

Management has taken definitive actions and implemented  procedures and controls
to address and correct the instance of noncompliance which occurred during 1999.

As of and for the year ended  December 31, 1999, the Company was covered by Bank
of America Corporation's fidelity bond insurance coverage and mortgage servicing
errors and  omissions  insurance  coverage  in the amounts of  $275,000.000  and
$275,000,000, respectively.


Andrew D. Woodward, Jr.
Chairman
Bank of America Mortgage

Daniel F. Hellams
President
Bank of America Mortgage


Denise C. Sawyer
Chief Financial Officer
Bank of America Mortgage

Gary K. Bettin
Loan Administration Executive
Bank of America Mortgage

J. Mark Hanson
Senior Vice President
Bank of America Mortgage

H. Randall Chesnut
Senior Vice President
Bank of America Mortgage

Donald J. Atkins
Executive Vice Presideat
Bank of America Mortgage
Rodricus Quadell HAMMONDS v. STATE

CR-16-0178

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2
**Officer Certification**
I, Christopher W. Wolf, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Catalina MarketingCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 16, 2004   By:      /s/ Christopher W. Wolf      Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
26
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ANDEXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b)**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Option Care, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission as of the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Rajat Rai, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, and Paul Mastrapa, Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best ofour knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)that:

(1)           This Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 9, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Rajat Rai                                     |   |
|---------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      |   | Rajat Rai                                         |
|                      |   | President and Chief Executive Officer             |
|                      |   |                                              |
|                      |   |                                              |
| Date: August 9, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Paul Mastrapa                                 |   |
|                      |   | Paul Mastrapa                                     |
|                      |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
STATE EX REL. Andrew D. WETZEL v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-1299

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

*572Denied.
Exhibit 32.1





STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) of Grayson Bankshares, Inc. (the Company), we, Jacky K. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Blake M. Edwards, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:



(a)

the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(b)

the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.







By:  /s/ Jacky K. Anderson

Date: August 12, 2005

Jacky K. Anderson

Chief Executive Officer







By: /s/ Blake M. Edwards

Date: : August 12, 2005

Blake M. Edwards

Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0305

_________________

JAMES JOSEPH MAIN, JR.,

 Petitioner and Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Respondent and Appellee.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable John W. Larson, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 24 2024

07/24/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0305
EX PARTE Deanna Perryman SCHOFIELD

(In re: Deanna Perryman Schofield v. Jonathan Shawn Schofield)

2160553

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 1 8 - 00221 - CV

________________________ TOM JOYCE , APPELLANT

V. FIVE STAR TRANSMISSION SERVICE CENTER, INC. , APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 181st District Court Randall C ounty, Texas Trial Court No. 71 , 209 - B ; Honorable John B. Board , Presiding

J uly 17 , 201 8 

### ORDER OF DISMISSAL Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER , JJ. Pending before this c ourt is the Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by Appellant, Tom Joyce, and Appellee, Five Star Transmission Service Center, Inc. By this motion, the parties represent that they have reached a settlement. Without passing on the merits of the appeal, the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1). Pursuant to the motion, all costs on appeal shall be taxed against the parties2

incurring them. Id

. at 42.1(d). Having dismissed this appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing w ill be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60380

Summary Calendar

MARIA CASTILLO-CORREA,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petitions for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A089 716 631

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maria Castillo-Correa petitions for review of a decision of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s 

(IJ) finding that she is ineligible for cancellation of removal. The IJ’s finding

was based on a determination that Castillo-Correa’s prior Texas convictions

for theft were crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT). The BIA dismissed 

Castillo-Correa’s appeal based on its decision in Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga, 26 

* 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 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60380 Document: 00515334852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2020
No. 17-60380

2

I. & N. Dec. 847 (BIA 2016), which altered its prior definition of a theft offense 

and held that the Texas theft statute was a CIMT. Castillo-Correa also filed a 

timely petition for review from the BIA’s denial of her motions for 

reconsideration and a stay of removal. 

After the parties filed their briefs, we decided Monteon-Camargo v. Barr,

918 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2019). In relevant part, we held that the BIA’s definition 

of a CIMT announced in Diaz-Lizarraga applies only to crimes committed after 

that decision issued. See id. at 431. Because her own theft convictions 

occurred many years prior to Diaz-Lizarraga, Castillo-Correa filed an 

unopposed motion to remand to the BIA for further consideration in light of 

Monteon-Camargo.

We have previously recognized that remand may be appropriate when 

the BIA’s decision has become unsustainable in light of an intervening change 

in binding precedent. See Kane v. Holder, 581 F.3d 231, 242 (5th Cir. 2009);

see also Arce–Vences v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 167, 172-73 (5th Cir. 2007) 

(remanding to the BIA for further consideration in light of an intervening 

Supreme Court decision). Accordingly, we GRANT the initial petition for 

review and REMAND this case to the BIA for further consideration. See 

Monteon-Camargo, 918 F.3d at 431. Castillo-Correa’s unopposed motion to 

remand is DENIED AS MOOT. Further, her petition for review from the 

denial of her motion for reconsideration and for a stay of removal also is

DENIED AS MOOT. 

 Case: 17-60380 Document: 00515334852 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2020
DYCK-O'NEAL, INC., Appellant, v. Hoang N. NGUYEN, Appellee.

No. 1D17-203

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 8, 2018 Rehearing Denied July 10, 2018

Susan B. Morrison, of Law Offices of Susan B. Morrison, P.A., and David M. Snyder, of David M. Snyder, and Joshua D. Moore, of Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, Tampa, for Appellant.

Gregory S. Gilbert, of Parker & DuFresne, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED . *See**Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., v. Lanham* , 214 So.3d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (certifying conflict between this Court's decision *Higgins v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc.* , 201 So.3d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), and decisions by the other four district courts of appeal), *review granted* , SC17-975, 2017 WL 4052015 (Fla. Sept. 14, 2017).

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Lewis and Makar, JJ., concur.
Brett HARTLEY, Appellant, v. 2D2G CORP. and Robert W. Russell, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-713

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

Michael R. Yokan, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Pamela R. Masters and Scott W. Cichon, of Cobb & Cole, Daytona Beach, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41611

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OMAR ALEJANDRO PORTILLO-RUIZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-81-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Omar Alejandro Portillo-Ruiz appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He argues that there is a 

conflict between the special conditions of supervised release that were imposed 

during the oral pronouncement of his sentence and those that were imposed by 

the written judgment.

 

* 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

September 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41611 Document: 00513684696 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2016
No. 15-41611

2

As part of the plea agreement, Portillo-Ruiz agreed to waive his right to 

appeal his conviction and sentence except with respect to an imprisonment 

term that exceeded the statutory maximum and with respect to a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Portillo-Ruiz argues that this appeal of his 

sentence is not precluded by his appeal waiver because the plea agreement was 

of no benefit to him and contains illegal provisions. He contends that the plea 

agreement is therefore unenforceable. 

Portillo-Ruiz did not challenge the validity of the plea agreement in the 

district court or attempt to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that the 

plea agreement lacked consideration. He cannot establish that the district 

court plainly erred in accepting the plea agreement as we have never expressly 

held that consideration is required to support a valid plea agreement. See

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Smallwood, 

920 F.2d 1231, 1239-40 (5th Cir. 1991). Moreover, the record demonstrates no 

reversible plain error with respect to the consideration given by the 

Government for Portillo-Ruiz’s plea agreement. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. 

Thus, the appeal waiver in Portillo-Ruiz’s plea agreement bars his challenge 

to any disparity between the oral sentence and the written judgment. See 

United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 738-39 (5th Cir. 2014). The judgment 

of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for summary 

affirmance and its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief are 

DENIED.

 Case: 15-41611 Document: 00513684696 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2016
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of 10-K of Maydao Corporation, (the “Company”)
on 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Paul Roszel President, and 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.








March
      15, 2010
            /s/
      Richard R. IvanovickRichard
      R. IvanovickChief
      Financial Officer
John A. TENNANT, Appellant, v. Thomas William SHEFFIELD, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0839

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2018

John A. Tennant, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED .

Wetherell, Rowe, and Winokur, JJ., concur.