alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUMBER 13 - 16 - 00282 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
MARCUS DOWNIE , APPELLANT ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE
.

On appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County , Texas.



## O R D E R
Before Justice s Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curia m
Appellant, Marcus Downie, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his conviction in trial court cause number 15

- CR

- 0633

- F

. The tri al court’s certification of the defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not h ave the right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of appeal is not made a part of the record. Id. R. 25.2(d); see id. R. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. The2

purpose of the certification requirement is to efficiently sort appealable cases from non

appealable cases so that appealable cases can “move through the system unhindered while eliminating, at an early stage, the time and expense associated with non

appealable cases.” Greenwell v. Ct. of Apps. for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist. , 159 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see Hargesheimer v. State , 182 S.W.3d 906, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Within thirty days of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, Hon. Travis Berry , is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to whether appellant has a right to a ppeal and/or advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification. If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant has a right to appeal, counsel is further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within thirty days of this notice, identif ying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant has a right to appeal. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 44.3, 44.4; Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 614

– 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also, e.g., Carroll v. State , 119 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (certification form provided in appendix to appellate rules may be modified to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under circumstances not addressed by the form). The motion must include an analysis of the applicable case law, and any fact ual allegations therein must be true and supported by the record. See Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 614

– 15; c f. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that recitations in the notice of ap peal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting3

appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1,
10.2. PER CURIAM Do n ot publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b). Delivered and filed the 19th day of August 2016

.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7544

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SEBASTIAN GOMEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-96-806) Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 30, 2001 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sebastian Gomez, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Sebastian Gomez appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record andthe district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the decision to deny Gomez’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Gomez , No. CR-96-806 (D.S.C. filed Oct. 11, 2000; entered Oct. 12, 2000). To the extent that Gomez raised additional claims sounding in habeas, we also rely on the reasoning of the district court in denying a certificate of appealability as to those claims and dismissing the appeal in relevant part. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
statements for the three months ended September 30, 1997 and as of September 30,
1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          34,675
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  912,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                   306,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               702,139
<PP&E>                                       1,151,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                 317,960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,867,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,467,644
<BONDS>                                        268,314
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,705
<OTHER-SE>                                     419,048
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,867,088
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               562,598
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  438,755
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               852,772
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             103,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (719,415)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (719,415)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (719,415)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>
Sammie FIFFIE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. TAMPA PARK APTS, INC., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.:2D18-1454

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 17, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of prohibition is denied.

KELLY, VILLANTI, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODICREPORT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,the undersigned, Richard N. Snyder, Chief Executive Officer of Forgent Networks, Inc.(the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended January 31,2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  RICHARD N. SNYDER  |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Richard  N. Snyder      |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | March 17, 2008     |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Forgent Networks, Inc. and will be retained by ForgentNetworks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.  The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

----
Jessie CLARK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-0990

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 27, 2018

Jessie Clark, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11
STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE.





<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,             SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                      ------------------------------          -----------------------------
                                                          1997             1996                  1997             1996
                                                      -----------        -----------          ----------       ----------
<S>                                                     <C>              <C>                  <C>              <C>
Net income...........................................    $898,955         $882,599            $2,486,882       $1,811,921

Adjustments for reduction in interest
  expense and effects of shares
  required to pay offering costs,
  and debt of $11,527,000............................          --          214,000                    --          427,000
                                                       ----------      -----------            ----------       ----------

Net income...........................................     898,955                              2,486,882
                                                       ==========                             ==========

Pro forma net income.................................                    1,096,599                              2,238,921
                                                                        ==========                             ==========

Average number of common shares outstanding..........   5,433,640        3,077,654             5,415,747        3,077,654
Common equivalent shares outstanding.................     232,388          427,385               232,388          427,385
Shares included in the offering......................          --        2,169,636                    --        2,169,636
                                                       ----------      -----------            ----------       ----------
Pro forma weighted average number of common
  and common equivalent shares outstanding...........   5,666,028        5,674,675             5,648,135        5,674,675
                                                       ==========      ===========            ==========       ==========

Net income per share.................................       $0.16                                  $0.44
                                                       ==========                             ==========
Pro forma net income per share.......................                        $0.19                                  $0.39
                                                                        ==========                             ==========
</TABLE>


 NOTE:    Net income per share figures will not necessarily add due to rounding
                                 adjustments.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 9073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03438]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Advisory Council.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting. URL for virtual access: https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=44677.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Advisory 
Council.
    Date: March 28, 2022.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: Provide advice to the Director, Center for Scientific 
Review (CSR), on matters related to planning, execution, conduct, 
support, review, evaluation, and receipt and referral of grant 
applications at CSR.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Bruce Reed, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Center for 
Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge 
Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-9159, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f0829595949282b09d91999cde9e9998de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c8baadadacaaba88a5a9a1a4e6a6a1a0e6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: https://public.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/Organization/CSRAdvisoryCouncil, where an agenda and any additional information 
for the meeting will be posted when available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 14, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03438 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 1ST
QUARTER FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 4/30/98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,493
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  279,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,375
<INVENTORY>                                    470,394
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               777,985
<PP&E>                                          92,645
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,913
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 994,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          620,543
<BONDS>                                          4,960
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          194,603
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                     173,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   994,985
<SALES>                                        581,249
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               680,634
<CGS>                                          524,645
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  588,056
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,032
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,732
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,944
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,788
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,560
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
Collier KIRKSEY v. STATE

CR-16-0128

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 28, 2017 Reh. denied May 19, 2017

Affirmed.
#### Walter C. Roehl, an Infant, by Helen Roehl, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, *v.*Thomas H. Whelpley et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Submitted April 5,1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*742
      *Arnold B. Elkind*and *Gerald F. Finley*for motion..

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs, and ten ■dollars costs of motion unless appellant pays ten dollars costs, in which event the motion is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
     <ARTICLE> 5
     <MULTIPLIER>                              1,000
            
     <S>                                       <C>
     <PERIOD-TYPE>                             6-MOS
     <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
     <PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
     <PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1997
     <CASH>                                    6,309
     <SECURITIES>                              17,434
     <RECEIVABLES>                             25,497
     <ALLOWANCES>                              1,324
     <INVENTORY>                               17,572
     <CURRENT-ASSETS>                          69,669
     <PP&E>                                    169,900
     <DEPRECIATION>                            71,004
     <TOTAL-ASSETS>                            206,535
     <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     39,572
     <BONDS>                                   128,590
     <COMMON>                                  0
     <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
     <PREFERRED>                               0
     <OTHER-SE>                                16,963
     <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              206,535
     <SALES>                                   136,761
     <TOTAL-REVENUES>                          136,761
     <CGS>                                     114,601
     <TOTAL-COSTS>                             127,839
     <OTHER-EXPENSES>                          6,149
     <LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
     <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        6,739
     <INCOME-PRETAX>                           2,773
     <INCOME-TAX>                              24
     <INCOME-CONTINUING>                       2,749
     <DISCONTINUED>                            0
     <EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
     <CHANGES>                                 0
     <NET-INCOME>                              2,749
     <EPS-PRIMARY>                             0
     <EPS-DILUTED>                             0
             




</TABLE>
#### Harry Eriksson, Appellant, *v.*Refiners Export Company, Inc., Respondent. (Action No. 2.)

Argued March 8, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*717
      *Forrest E. Single*for appellant.

*James F. Dwyer*and *Harold H. Meyers*for respondent appearing specially.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Walter Artavius GRAY, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10240 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 2, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Walter Artavius Gray, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Walter Artavius Gray on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief that relies on *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Gray has not filed a response. The motion 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.
#### Manuel Antonio GARAY-CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-73025

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

Steve Sungsoo Chang, Law Offices of Chang & Lim, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Suzanne N. Nardone, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Manuel Antonio Garay-Castillo, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, arid protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garay-Castillo failed to establish past persecution. *See id.*at 1185-87. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Ga-ray-Castillo failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir, 2003). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Garay-Castillo’s asylum claim.

Because Garay-Castillo failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard *929for -withholding of removal. *See Zehatye,*453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Garay-Castillo failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Nicaraguan government. *See Robleto-Pastora v. Holder,*591 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.