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

No. 10

- 18

- 00174

- CR

COREY WHITTING , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 278th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 26519

O R D E R O N R E H E A R I N G

On May 30, 2018, this Court issued an opinion dismissing the appeal of Corey

Whitting because the trial court’s certificate of right to appeal indicates that this is a plea

bargain case and Whitting does not have the right to appeal. On June 8, 2018, Whitting

filed a motion for rehearing arguing that the certificate of right to appeal is defective

because it is contrary to the record. The record indicates that Whitting waived his right

to appeal in a plea bargain agreement in August of 2014 and was placed on deferredW hitting v. State Page 2

adjudication. The State filed a motion to adjudicate alleging numerous violations of

community supervision. Whitting pleaded true to most of the allegations; however, there

is nothing in the record to indicate that the plea of true was pursuant to a plea bargain

agreement. The certificate of right to appeal filed on April 2 7, 2018 appears to be

defective. Therefore, Whitting’s motion for rehearing is granted. We withdraw our May

30, 2018 opinion, and the appeal is reinstated. The trial court is ordered to file a corrected

certificate of right to appeal within 14 days fro m the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion granted; appeal reinstated Order delivered and filed August 1 , 2018 Do not publish [CR25]
Exhibit 99.1
                                                                    ------------

                            SWITCHBOARD INCORPORATED
                                120 Flanders Road
                          Westboro, Massachusetts 01581


               LETTER TO COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

                                 March 29, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Judiciary Plaza
Washington, D.C.  20549-0408

RE: Confirmation of Arthur Andersen LLP Representations

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, Switchboard
Incorporated (the "Company") has obtained a letter of representation addressed
to the Company from Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen"), the independent public
accountant engaged by the Company to examine the Company's financial statements
that are included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K to which this letter is
filed as an exhibit, stating that the December 31, 2001 audit conducted by
Andersen was subject to their quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards, and that there was
appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit and
availability of national office consultation. Availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

                                Very truly yours,

                                SWITCHBOARD INCORPORATED

                            By: /s/ Robert P. Orlando
                                ---------------------
                                Robert P. Orlando
                                Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
                                Treasurer and Secretary
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Martinez, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 896]

Judgment Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered November 4, 1999, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of manslaughter in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The credible evidence clearly established defendant’s reckless conduct.

The record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

Defendant’s sentence was not unconstitutional, and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence in the interest of justice.

We have considered and rejected the remaining claims contained in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0720 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. PAUL LEONARD BEAN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 23 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 14 2020

08/14/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0720
NUMBER 13-10-00230-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF M.M.A., A JUVENILE

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the Juvenile Court 

of Bee County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This case is before the Court on appellant’s “Notice that Case May be Moot.” 

M.M.A., a juvenile, appeals from an order modifying his disposition and committing him 

into the custody of the Texas Youth Commission. We hold that M.M.A.’s appeal is moot, 

and therefore, we dismiss the appeal. 

A case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the 

parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 

481 (1982). M.M.A. was released from custody of the Texas Youth Commission on April 
2

14, 2011, was released from all post-commitment supervision in this case on December 

16, 2011, and turned eighteen years of age on March 18, 2012. See TEX. FAM. CODE

ANN. § 54.05(b) (Vernon 2002) (all dispositions automatically terminate when the child 

reaches his eighteenth birthday). 

When a cause becomes moot, an appellate court must dismiss the cause, not just 

the appeal. City of Garland v. Louton, 691 S.W.2d 603, 605 (Tex. 1985). The Court, 

having considered the appellate record and the appellant=s “Notice that Case May be 

Moot,” dismisses this cause as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

19th day of July, 2012.
Harry JOHNSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1309

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 17, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for belated appeal is granted in circuit court case number 16-CF-7323. This order shall serve as a timely notice of appeal from the judgment and sentence, the latter imposed August 31, 2017. Within twenty days the trial court shall consider appellant's eligibility for appointment of appellate counsel, provided appellant files within ten days a motion in the circuit court requesting same accompanied by a financial affidavit, and shall enter an order thereupon, with a copy to appellant and a copy to this court.

The circuit court clerk shall treat this order as a notice of appeal, promptly certify same and return it to this court as with any notice of appeal, accompanied by any order of indigency that may have been entered by the circuit court, and a new appellate case number will be assigned to this appeal and an acknowledgment letter will issue at that time.

BLACK, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Javier GARZA-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40698 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 8, 2017

John A. Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Stephen W. Byrne, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Javier Garza-Flores, Pro Se

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Javier Garza-Flores appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. He contends that the district court erred in increasing his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal Code § 30.02. Garza-Flores argues, under *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), that the Texas burglary statute is not divisible and that not every violation of § 30.02(a) qualifies as a crime of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii).

The Government has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance asserting that Garza-Flores’s arguments are foreclosed by our recent decision in *United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017). In the alternative, the Government requests an extension of time in which to file a brief on the merits.

The Government is correct that *Uribe*forecloses Garza-Flores’s *Mathis*argument. *See Uribe,*838 F.3d at 669-71. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time *265to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
#### Rafael MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. Elaine C. DUKE, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Respondent

No. 16-60421 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 28, 2017

Raed Gonzalez, Esq., Senior Attorney, Gonzalez Olivieri, L.L.C., Houston, TX, Sheridan Gary Green, Sheridan Green Law, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Petitioner

■Edward C. Durant, Thomas Ward Hus-sey, Director, David Michael McConnell, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Loretta Lynch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

*187Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rafael Martinez-Rodriguez (Martinez) petitions for review of an order of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reinstating his prior deportation order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Martinez contends that (1) he reentered lawfully and the immigration officer violated a reinstatement regulation by failing to verify his claim that he had been admitted lawfully; (2) the immigration officer violated his right to due process during the reinstatement proceeding; and (3) reinstatement constituted a gross miscarriage of justice because he was not removable as charged originally.

There is nothing in the administrative record demonstrating that Martinez applied for and obtained express consent to reapply for admission before he reentered, and Martinez does not argue that he applied for or obtained such express consent. Nor does he argue that the border patrol agent’s permission to enter the United States was tantamount to the requisite express consent to reapply for admission. His argument, unsupported by the record, that he was admitted through the port of entry does not compel a conclusion that his reentry was not illegal. *See Anderson v. Napolitano,*611 F.3d 275, 278 (5th Cir. 2010); *Avalos-Martinez v. Johnson,*560 Fed.Appx. 385, 388-89 (5th Cir. 2014).

Relying on facts outside of the administrative record, Martinez contends that he was denied due process during the reinstatement proceeding. Aliens do have a Fifth Amendment right to due process in reinstated removal proceedings, *Ojeda-Terrazas v. Ashcroft,*290 F.3d 292, 302 (5th Cir. 2002), but an alien must make an initial showing of substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge, *De Zavala v. Ashcroft,*385 F.3d 879, 883 (5th Cir. 2004). Martinez has not shown that the result in this case would be different if he had been given the procedural safeguards he seeks, so his due process challenge fails. *See Ojeda-Terrazas,*290 F.3d at 302.

Martinez has not shown a gross miscarriage of justice, leaving this court without authority to review his prior removal order. *See Martinez v. Johnson,*740 F.3d 1040, 1042 (5th Cir. 2014); *Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar,*436 F.3d 508 513-14 (5th Cir. 2006).

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEODEGARIO SALVADOR,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; TRUSTEE

CORPS,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 15750

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv

- 00149

- LDG

GWF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 8, 2017 **

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY , and NGUYEN , Circuit Judges.

Leodegario Salvador appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his diversity action seeking to quiet title. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Owen , 519

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclu des this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 15750

F.3d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Salvador

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Bank of America’s

interest in the subject property had been extinguished by the foreclosure sale

. See

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116

. 3116 ( a Homeowners Association ( “ HOA ” ) has a “super

priority” lien with respect to other liens , and the HOA’s super priority lien may

constitute up to nine months of HOA fees ) ; SFR Invs

. Pool 1 v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

,

334 P.3d 409, 414 (Nev. 2014) ( a holder of a first deed of trust may preserve its

interest in the subject property if the amount of the super priority lien is tendered

prior to the HOA foreclosure sale ).

AFFIRMED.
PURCHASER'S CERTIFICATE
                                                     
                                                     
                                                     


                                                            March ___, 1998


               The  undersigned,  being  the  Chief  Financial  Officer  of
          Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc., the Purchaser under that  Stock
          Purchase Agreement dated as  of February 25,  1998, by and  among
          Purchaser and  the  Sellers of  all  the issued  and  outstanding
          shares  of  Global  Combined  Technologies,  Inc.  (_Agreement_),
          hereby certifies as follows:

               1.   Each of the representations and warranties of Purchaser
          contained in the Agreement, and as applicable, the Other  Sellers
          Documents as that term  is defined in  the Agreement (the  _Other
          Sellers Documents_) is true and correct  in all respects (in  the
          case of any representation or warranty containing any materiality
          qualification) or in all  material respects (in  the case of  any
          representation or warranty without any materiality qualification)
          at and as of February 25, 1998  and on the date hereof as  though
          made on the date hereof, except for changes therein  specifically
          permitted by  the Agreement  or  resulting from  any  transaction
          expressly consented to in writing by the Sellers.

               2.   Purchaser  has  duly  performed  and  complied  in  all
          material respects with all agreements and conditions required  by
          the Agreement  and,  as applicable,  each  of the  Other  Sellers
          Documents.


          Executed and delivered this _____ day of March, 1998.


                                          POMEROY COMPUTER RESOURCES, INC.



                                          By:
          ________________________________
                                             Stephen  E.   Pomeroy,   Chief
                                             Financial  Officer
454 A.2d 169

#### Guarrera, et al. v. Bogosian, Appellants.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied March 22, 1983.

*620Argued September 15, 1981.

Leo A. Hackett, for appellant; Harvey A. Sernovitz, for appellee.

Before CAVANAUGH, DiSALLE and WATKINS, JJ.

Order affirmed.

DiSALLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig Okeido ANDERSON, a/k/a Snap, a/k/a Sir Chill, a/k/a King Hundredgrand, a/k/a Yung Royalty, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6183

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Craig Okeido Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Paul E. Budlow, Zachary Augustus Myers, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Craig Okeido Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Anderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit 32.2



TIBCO SOFTWARE INC.



CERTIFICATION



I, Murray D. Rode, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Strategic Operations of TIBCO Software Inc. (the Company), do hereby
certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:



| | (a) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: February 9, 2007



/s/ MURRAY D. RODEMurray D. Rode Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Strategic Operations
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #17286 and #17287; Kentucky Disaster Number KY-00087]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 5.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4630-DR), dated 12/12/2021.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, Flooding, and Tornadoes.                    

*Incident Period:*                         12/10/2021 through 12/11/2021.                    

# DATES:

Issued on 02/14/2022.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         03/14/2022.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         09/12/2022.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, dated 12/12/2021, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 03/14/2022.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Barbara Carson,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2022-03550 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-03-P