alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 73 4- CR Br enda MEDRAN O , Appellant
v . The STA TE of Texas, Appellee Fr om the 406th J udicial District Court, Webb County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CRP-000366-D4 Honora ble O.J . Hale, Jr., J udg e Presiding
PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: March 10, 2010 DI SMI SSED FOR L ACK OF J URI SDI CTI ON The trial c ourt imposed sentenc e on Jul y 13, 2009, and appellant did not file a motion for new t ri al
. The de adline for

filing a notice of a

ppeal wa s theref

ore A ug ust 12, 2009. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26 .2 (a )( 1) . A no tic e of a

pp e a l wa s no t f

ile d unti l O c tob e r 1 4, 20 09 . App e lla nt d id n ot f

ile a tim e ly motion for extension of tim e to file the notice of appe al. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3.04
- 09
- 00 07 34
- CR

- 2- B e c a us e the no tic e of a

pp e a l in thi s c a se wa s n ot t ime ly

fi le d, we la c k ju

ri sd ic tio n to e nte rt a in the appe al. See Ol iv o v. Sta te , 91 8 S.W. 2d 51 9, 52 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); se e als o A te r v . E igh th Cou rt of A

pp e als , 802 S.W .2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (explaining that writ of habe as cor pus pursuant to ar

ticle 11.07 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Procedur e gover ns out-of-time a

ppeals fr om felony convictions). Ac cording ly , we dismiss this appeal for w ant of jurisdiction.
PER C URI AM Do No t Pu

bli sh
___________ No. 95-3329

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Russell Terry Williams, * * [PUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 9, 1996 Filed: January 24, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Russell Terry Williams appeals his sentence. After tendering a guilty plea, he was sentenced to twenty-seven months imprisonment for conspiring to distribute heroin and cocaine. We affirm. Williams contends that the district court erred in determining that two of his prior convictions were not related within the meaning of U.S.S.G. §4A1.2. If the convictions had been found to be related, Williams would have a criminal history category of V instead of VI. At sentencing, the district court determined that the two convictions, one for burglary of a liquor store and one for stealing a horse several days after the burglary, were not related. Nevertheless, after imposing the sentence, the district court stated, "[n]ow, that sentence is within the guideline range of ---2- whether you figure the criminal history a 5 or a 6, it's still within that range." Sentencing Transcript at 33.
We find that Williams's sentence is not reviewable. The sentence imposed falls within the guideline range urged by Williams. It is clear from the sentencing transcript that the sentencing judge would have imposed the same sentence regardless of whether Williams's argument for the lower guideline range prevailed. Thus, any error in calculating the guideline range is deemed harmless because Williams faces the same sentence, win or lose. United States v. Torres-Diaz , 60 F.3d 445, 449 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 432 (1995). Accordingly, Williams's sentence is affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Tracy CUNEO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-60585 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 21, 2017

Michael Hallock, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alfred Eugene Harlow, Jr., Harlow Law Firm, Grenada, MS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

James Tracy Cuneo appeals the revocation of his supervised release following his sentence for failure to register as a sex offender. He urges that there was insufficient evidence supporting the revocation because the witness testimony was unreliable and did not establish his actual possession of methamphetamine.

The arresting officer testified to seeing Cuneo drop a bag containing a substance that tested positive for methamphetamine. There was no evidence that another individual possessed the bag during the time the officer conducted a safety sweep of the house. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence shows that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Cuneo’s supervised release based on possession of methamphetamine. *See United States v. McCormick,*54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995); *United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz,*38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994).

Cuneo also challenges his within-guidelines sentence of eight months of imprisonment and a two-year term of supervised release. He argues that the distinct court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence because it was his first revocation of supervised release and the district court placed too much weight on irrelevant sentencing factors, including testimony from a probation officer about an unannounced home visit and his admission to being a habitual marijuana user. However, he has not shown that the district court failed to take into account a factor that should have received significant weight, gave signifi*189cant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or made a clear error in judgment when balancing the sentencing factors. *See United States v. Warren,*720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4,
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arnulfo De LUNA-MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40217 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed: 12/20/2016

*908Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Arnulfo De Luna-Munoz, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Arnulfo De Luna-Munoz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). De Luna-Munoz 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 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.

*

 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.
Baby Zarah Jane BENJAMIN, et al., Appellants, v. HERTZ CAR RENTAL, Appellee.

No. 3D15-2810

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 29, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

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

NO. 2017-KH-0382

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Supreme Court of Louisiana May 18, 2018

Denied.
#### Alfonso REYES-CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-72393

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*938Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

Alfonso Reyes-Camacho, Pro Se.

Kristin Moresi, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Alfonso Reyes-Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Reyes-Camacho established extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely-filed asylum application. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Reyes-Camacho’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Reyes-Camacho failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted if he retúrns to Mexico. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Reyes-Camacho’s withholding of removal claim.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Reyes-Camacho failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073.

Finally, we deny as unnecessary Reyes-Camacho’s renewed request for a stay of removal because the court previously granted a temporary stay of removal. The stay of removal will terminate upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Claude Derrick B. CAMPBELL, Sr. v. Lasuan Dinkins CAMPBELL

2160399

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
ACCEPTED

12-14-00127-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

1/2/2015 1:02:11 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 1/2/2015 1:02:11 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00050

- CV

Robert Joseph Yezak , Appellant

v.

Benit i a J. Yezak , Appellee

FROM THE 296 TH DISTRICT COURT OF COLLIN COUNTY NO. 296

- 52069

- 2020 , THE HONORABLE JOHN R. ROACH, JR. , JUDGE PRESIDIN G

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In January 2022, this Court rece ived a ppellant Robert Jos eph Yezak ’ s notice of

appeal p urporting to appeal from the trial court ’ s order “ granting nonsuit in cause number 36,677

in Mila m Cou nt y

. ” The district clerk from Milam Cou nty has provided this Court with a copy of

a n Augu st 2020 order tra nsferring the underlying suit from Milam County to Collin C o unty

.

On Apr il 8, 202 2 , this C ourt notified appellant that it appeared that this Cour t

d oe s not have juris diction over this appeal because it arises out of a case from Collin County

.

See Tex. Gov. Code § 22.201(d) (listing counties within Third Court of Appeals Distri ct),

(f) (listing counties, including Collin County, within Fifth Court o f Ap p eals District). We

requested a response from appellant , asking him to explain how we may exer cise jurisdiction

over thi s appeal. Appellant has filed a response, but he has fail ed to d emonstrate this Court ’ s

jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant stat e s that he is ap peal in g “ the decision of the Milam2

Co unty Court to transfer the case out of Milam County

, ” but he concedes that the case was

transferred

. Because the underlying suit was pending in Collin C o unty when appellant filed his

notice of appea l , we dismiss this a ppeal for want of jurisdiction

. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3( a ).

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin

, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: June 10, 2 022

1 We furt her observe that t o the extent appellant seeks to appeal t he Milam County trial

court ’ s transfer order as an i nterlocutory appeal, his n otice of appeal w ould not be timely,

see Te x. R. App. P. 26(b) (re quiring notice of accelerated appe al to be filed withi n 20 days after order is signed), and even if it had been timely filed , the transfer order is not subject to interlocut ory appeal, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.064(a) (providing that there is no interlocutory appeal from trial court’ s venu e determinatio ns); Tex. R. Civ. P. 87(6) (providing that “[t]here shall be no interlocutory appeals from [a determination on a motion to transfer venue]”)

.
Willie BROWN, Jr. v. BREAUX BRIDGE VENTURES, LLC

NO. 2018-C-0444

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
#### IN RE: Tracy Jarvis ALLEN, Petitioner.

No. 16-1797

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 1, 2016

Decided: December 21, 2016

Tracy Jarvis Allen, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tracy Jarvis Allen petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing his immediate release from prison based on his claim for Johnson **875relief from his armed career criminal sentence. We deny the petition.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought, In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988), and when there are no other means by which that relief could be granted, Moussaoui, 333 F.3d at 517.

Currently pending in the district court is Allen’s authorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion in which Allen raises the same Johnson arguments advanced in the instant petition. Thus, because there is another avenue through which Allen could obtain the relief he seeks, we deny the instant mandamus petition.

To the extent Allen’s mandamus petition could be construed to allege undue delay by the district court in adjudicating the successive § 2255 motion and to seek an order from this court directing the district court to act, we find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

*

 Johnson v. United States, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015).
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-146-CR

JAMES RYAN GILES APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371 DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ST

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Motion For Voluntary Dismissal Of

Appeal By Appellant James Ryan Giles.” The motion complies with rule 42.2(a)

of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of

this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 20, 2009
# Dziennik Urzędowy C 164A/29 m

| | ISSN 1977-1002 |
| --- | --- |
| Dziennik Urzędowy
  Unii Europejskiej | C 164A |
| | |
| Wydanie polskie | Informacje i zawiadomienia | Tom 5729 maja 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1002

Dziennik Urzędowy

Unii Europejskiej

C 164A

Wydanie polskie

Informacje i zawiadomienia

Tom 5729 maja 2014

---

| Powiadomienie nr | Spis treśći | Strona |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Ogłoszenia |
| | POSTĘPOWANIA ADMINISTRACYJNE |
| | Europejski Bank Centralny |
| 2014/C 164A/01 | Przedłużenie terminu zgłaszania kandydatur na członków Administracyjnej Rady Odwoławczej | 1 |

Powiadomienie nr

Spis treśći

Strona

V   Ogłoszenia

POSTĘPOWANIA ADMINISTRACYJNE

Europejski Bank Centralny

2014/C 164A/01

Przedłużenie terminu zgłaszania kandydatur na członków Administracyjnej Rady Odwoławczej

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 164A/02 | Przegląd dzienników urzędowych serii C A — Konkursy | 2 |

2014/C 164A/02

Przegląd dzienników urzędowych serii C A — Konkursy

2

| PL | |
| --- | --- |

PL

---

V Ogłoszenia

POSTĘPOWANIA ADMINISTRACYJNE

Europejski Bank Centralny

| 29.5.2014 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | CA 164/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2014

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

CA 164/1

---

Przedłużenie terminu zgłaszania kandydatur na członków Administracyjnej Rady Odwoławczej

2014/C 164 A/01

EBC ogłasza przedłużenie do dnia 2 czerwca 2014 r. terminu zgłaszania kandydatur w odpowiedzi na zaproszenie do wyrażenia zainteresowania stanowiskami ekspertów zewnętrznych, którzy mają być powołani na członków i zastępców członków Administracyjnej Rady Odwoławczej Europejskiego Banku Centralnego (Frankfurt nad Menem, Niemcy), opublikowane w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej w dniu 1 maja 2014 r. (1).

---

(1)  Dz.U. C 133 A z 1.5.2014, s. 1.

---

29.5.2014

| 29.5.2014 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | CA 164/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

CA 164/2

---

PRZEGLĄD DZIENNIKÓW URZĘDOWYCH SERII C A — KONKURSY

2014/C 164 A/02

Poniżej znajduje się lista Dzienników Urzędowych serii C A opublikowanych w tym roku.

O ile nie wskazano inaczej, Dzienniki Urzędowe opublikowane zostały we wszystkich wersjach językowych.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

---
K.H., Father of K.F., Minor Child, Appellant, v. The GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, Appellee.

No. 1D18-631

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
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 amended Annual Report of eClic, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Evagelina Esparza Barrza, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of eClic, Inc.
(the "Registrant"), 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

Date: May 19, 2005
      ------------
                                           /s/ Evagelina Esparza Barrza
                                           ----------------------------
                                               Evagelina Esparza Barrza
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

      OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES OXLEY ACT

I, PIETER DURAND, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2004 of Echo Resources, 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 in order
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
annual report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  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 annual report;

4. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s)  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 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  small  business  issuer,
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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business  issuer's  disclosure
controls and  procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual 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  officer(s) and I have disclosed,  based on
our most recent  evaluation,  to the small  business  issuer's  auditors and the
audit  committee of the small  business  issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

     (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 weakness in internal controls; and
     (b) Any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management or other
employees who have a significant  role in the small business  issuer's  internal
controls.


Date:  April 14, 2005

                              By: /s/ PIETER DURAND
                             ---------------------------------
                             Pieter DuRand
                             Chief Executive Officer
                             and Chief Financial Officer
                             (Or Equivelant Thereof)