alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Jack Reger, Appellant.

Argued January 18, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*Nathaniel Phillips*and *B. Hoffman Miller*for appellant.

*Samuel J. Foley, District Attorney (George Tilzer*and *Herman J. Fliederblum*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Finch, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Dissenting, Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran and Rippey, JJ., on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emilio Sosa VELASQUEZ, also known as Emilliano Velasquez Sosa, also known as Emilio Sosa-Velasquez, also known as Emiliano Sosa, also known as Julio Emiliano Velasquez-Sosa, also known as Emiliano Velasquez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20127 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 3, 2017

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

Emilio Sosa Velasquez, Pro Se

Before JONES; WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Emilio Sosa Velasquez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He argues that the district court erred in assessing him a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) due to his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation, in violation of Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1), which the district court characterized as a crime of violence. *See United States v. Conde-Castaneda,*753 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that § 30.02(a) is divisible and reiterating that offenses under § 30.02(a)(1) qualify as generic burglary). Velasquez argues that this conviction does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 2Ll,2(b)(l)(A)(ii) in light of *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016).

The Government has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance asserting that Velasquez’s arguments are foreclosed by our recent decision in *United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 671 (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.

*250The Government is correct that *Uribe*forecloses Velasquez’s *Mathis*argument. *See Uribe,*838 F.3d at 669-71. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary af-firmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to 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.
BID - 03.31.2012-10Q - Exhibit 10.1


EXHIBIT 10.1


SOTHEBY'S NEVADA, INC
5600 Spring Mountain Road, Suite 104
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102


 
February 1, 2012


Acquavella Contemporary Art, Inc.
c/o Mr. William R. Acquavella
300 Pleasure Drive
Flanders, NY 11901


Dear Bill:


This letter agreement amends the Agreement of Partnership (the “Partnership Agreement”) of Acquavella Modern Art, a Nevada general partnership, dated May 29, 1990, between Sotheby's Nevada, Inc., a Nevada Corporation (“Sotheby's Partner”), and Acquavella Contemporary Art, Inc., a Nevada Corporation (“Acquavella Partner”).


By prior letters of amendment, we have agreed to extend the term of the Partnership Agreement through March 31, 2012.  By this letter of amendment, we are agreeing to extend the term of the Partnership Agreement for one additional year through March 31, 2013.  Accordingly, each of the Sotheby's Partner and the Acquavella Partner hereby agree to amend Section 1.5 (iii) of the Partnership Agreement, as heretofore amended, to delete the reference to March 31, 2012 and substitute therefore the date of “March 31, 2013.”


Except as amended hereby, the Partnership Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed.


Please sign this letter agreement in the space provided below.  Upon execution on behalf of the Acquavella Partner, this letter agreement shall be effective as of the date of this letter.


SOTHEBY'S  NEVADA, INC.
 


	
			
	By:
	/s/ WILLIAM S. SHERIDAN
	 

	 
	William S. Sheridan, EVP & Chief Financial Officer












AGREED AND ACCEPTED 
ACQUAVELLA CONTEMPORARY ART, INC.




	
			
	By:
	/s/ WILLIAM R. ACQUAVELLA
	 

	 
	William R. Acquavella, President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio CORTES-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40926 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 1, 2017

Amy Howell Alaniz, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joseph A. Connors, III, Esq., Attorney, Law Office of Joseph A. Connors, III, McAllen, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In 1995, Defendant-Appellant Sergio Cortes-Mendoza pleaded guilty to knowingly and willfully aiding and abetting the illegal entry of aliens into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and received a sentence of 30 days of imprisonment. In 2016, Cortes-Mendoza filed an application for a writ of error coram nobis, challenging his 1995 conviction. The district court denied the application as barred by laches.

We review the district court’s “factual findings for clear error, questions of law de novo, and the district court’s ultimate decision to deny the writ [of coram nobis] for abuse of discretion.” *Santos-Sanchez v. United States,*548 F.3d 327, 330 (5th Cir. 2008), *vacated on other grounds,*559 U.S. 1046, 130 S.Ct. 2340, 176 L.Ed.2d 559 (2010). The writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available in the federal courts pursuant to the All Writs Act as an avenue of collateral attack for a prisoner who has completed his sentence and is no longer in custody for t purpose of seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *United States v. Dyer,*136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998); *see also*28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Coram nobis relief should be employed to correct only fundamental errors that result in a *296complete miscarriage of justice. *Dyer,*136 F.3d at 422, 430.

Cortes-Mendoza has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in holding that laches applied. *See id.*at 430. Neither has he shown that the court abused its discretion by not ordering a hearing. *See Lujan v. United States,*424 F.2d 1053, 1055 (5th Cir. 1970). Finally, because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cortes-Mendoza’s application, we need not consider Cortes-Mendoza’s substantive arguments, which the district court did not consider. *See*U.S. Const, art. III, § 2, cl. 1; *In re Talbott Big Foot, Inc.,*924 F.2d 85, 87 (5th Cir. 1991).

The district court’s denial of Cortes-Mendoza’s application for a writ of coram nobis 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose William QUINTANILLA, also known as Pablo, also known as Ronko, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20555 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 25, 2017

John Richard Berry, 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

Mark Glendon Parenti, Parenti Law, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose William Quintanilla appeals following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiring in the sex trafficking of children by force and coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). He argues that the district court’s refusal to hear his testimony at the sentencing hearing violated the Due Process Clause, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, U.S.S.G, § 6A1.3(a), and this court’s precedents.

Quintanilla entered his plea in accordance with a written plea agreement wherein he waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except with the respect to his right to appeal a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Government seeks to enforce the waiver. Our review whether the waiver provision bars the instant appeal is de novo. *United States v. Jacobs,*635 F.3d 778, 780-81 (5th Cir. 2011). We construe the plea agreement “like a contract, seeking to determine the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement and construing any ambiguity against the Government.” *United States v. Farias,*469 F.3d 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2006) (footnote omitted).

We need not reach whether the waiver encompasses Quintanilla’s challenge to the conduct of the sentencing hearing. Rather, our review of the record satisfies us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hear testimony. *See United States v. Jackson,*453 F.3d 302, 305 (5th Cir. 2006); *United States v. Henderson,*19 F.3d 917, 927 (5th Cir. 1994).

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.
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                  ------------



            CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-0XLEY
       ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Okley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of SBS Interactive, Inc., a Florida corporation (the
"Company") does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-K Report") that: (1) the 10-KSB
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 10-KSB
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                              SBS INTERACTIVE, INC.

Dated:  April 14, 2003        By: /s/ Todd Gotlieb
                                  -----------------------------------------
                                  Todd Gotlieb, President and Principal
                                  Executive Financial and Accounting Officer
#### TEXAS and St.LOUIS RAILWAY vs. NARRAMORE et al.

SUPREME COURT,

TYLER TERM, 1883.

*Parties*— Misjoinder. Where it is disclosed during the progress of a cause that one co-plaintiff had no title or interest in the subject matter of the suit, when the acts complained of were committed, and done when the action was brought, such suit cannot be maintained by them jointly.

Appeal from Titus County.

Opinion by

West, J.

In this case it is urged that the judgment of the district court was erroneous, because, though the pleadings did- not, the evidence disclosed an improper joinder of parties plaintiff.

This was a joint action instituted by the appellees, Narramore and Preston, for the recovery of joint damages sustained by them by reason of the appellants, without their consent, laying of and grading their railroad through land alleged to be the joint property of the appellees. The appellee, Narramore, testified that he had once owned the land on which the trespass is alleged to have been committed. Before the date of the alleged injury, however, and before the institution of this suit, he had sold all his interest in it to his *518co-plaintiff, Preston. He states positively that he owned no part of the land described in the petition when the acts complained of, and which were made the basis for recovery in this action were committed, or when the suit was brought. He further states that at some period after the commencement of this action he had repurchased from his co-plaintiff, Preston, thirty acres of land descrioed in the petition. The evidence of the appellee, Preston, was, in substance, to the same effect.

A defect of parties plaintiff may, in cases like the present, be taken advantage of on the trial. Baily vs. Trammel, 27 Tex. 326; Holliman vs. Rogers, 6 Tex. 97. This last case, (Holliman vs. Rogers), though another point there decided is believed to be to some extent in conflict with the subsequent case of Sublett vs. McKinney (19 Tex. 438); see Tutt vs. Thornton (57 Tex. 36), and also that of Williamson vs. Durst, (25 Tex. 667), yet it has never been doubted as to the other points determined by it. See also 1 Chitty’s Pl. 66.

Where it is disclosed during the progress of the cause that one co-plaintiff had no title or interest in the subject matter of the suit, when the acts complained of were committed, and done when the action was brought, such suit can not be maintained by them jointly. Gould’s Pleadings, 196, 197; Furbish vs. Goodwin, 25 N. H., 425; May vs. Slade, 24 Tex. 208; Stately vs. Pierce, 28 Tex 328; Birmingham vs. Griffin, 42 Tex. 147; G., H. *&*S. A. R’y Co. vs. Peuffer, 56 Tex. 74.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134918 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134918 

 COA: 279148 

Berrien CC: 2001-401728-FH 

LESTER JEROME WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 29, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Entertainment Gaming Asia Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),we, Clarence Chung, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, andAndy Tsui, Vice President Finance and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| By:    | /s/ Clarence Chung                     |   | Dated: | November 10, 2010 |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------|
|   | Clarence Chung                         |   |   |                   |
| Title: | President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |   |                   |
|   |                                   |   |   |                   |
|   |                                   |   |   |                   |
| By:    | /s/ Andy Tsui                          |   | Dated: | November 10, 2010 |
|   | Andy Tsui                              |   |   |                   |
| Title: | Chief Accounting Officer               |   |   |                   |

 

 

This certification is madesolely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to theknowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

1

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60795

Summary Calendar

VIRGINIA BENEDICTA VEGA DE MARCOTE, also known as Virginia 

Benedicta Quintero, also known as Virginia Benedicta Marcote,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A039 172 353

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Virginia Benedicta Vega de Marcote, a native and citizen of Colombia, 

challenges the denial of her application for withholding of removal. 

Following several Texas state-law drug convictions, Vega was charged 

with being an alien subject to removal, on the grounds she was convicted of: 

an aggravated felony, see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); an attempt, or 

 

* 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 7, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60795 Document: 00513408158 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2016
No. 14-60795

2

conspiracy, to commit an aggravated felony, id.; and a violation of a state law 

regarding federally-controlled substances, see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Vega 

conceded removability pursuant to § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), but denied she was 

removable as an aggravated felon under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Following a 

hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) sustained the aggravated-felonyremovability charge.

Vega subsequently filed an application for asylum and withholding of 

removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Convention 

Against Torture (CAT), asserting she would be subject to persecution from 

guerillas and gangs if forced to return to Colombia. The IJ concluded Vega 

failed to establish she was entitled to withholding of removal under either the 

INA or CAT, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ’s decision 

and dismissed her appeal. 

When an alien is removable under §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) or (a)(2)(B), we

generally lack jurisdiction to review a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(C); e.g., Flores-Garza v. I.N.S., 328 F.3d 797, 801 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Jurisdiction is proper, however, if petitioner presents “constitutional claims or 

questions of law”. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). 

Vega contends: the evidence, including her credible testimony, 

establishes she is eligible for withholding of removal under the INA; and the 

IJ erred in concluding otherwise. Her assertions, however, present nothing 

more than her disagreement with the IJ’s factual findings; therefore, we lack 

jurisdiction to review the final order of removal. E.g., Siwe v. Holder, 742 F.3d 

603, 613 (5th Cir. 2014); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). 

DISMISSED.

 Case: 14-60795 Document: 00513408158 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2016
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with the periodic report of Connetics Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John L. Higgins, Chief Financial
Officer, Executive Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development of the
Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:



| | (1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the
periods indicated.

|                                                                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: December 2, 2003                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                                        
|/s/ John L. Higgins

John L. Higgins Executive Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development
Chief Financial Officer
## No. 01-14-00648-CV

In the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas HOWARD WAKEFIELD III and BARRETT WAKEFIELD , Appellants

,
v. SAM AYERS AND CLAUDIA AYERS, Appellees

. On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 Harris County, Texas Cause No. 1007580-002

**REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO FILE**  **APPELANT** "Howard Wakefield III" BRIEF

TO	THE	HONORABLE	FIRST	COURT	OF	APPEALS:
Pursuant	to	T EX .	R.	A PP .	P.	10.5(b)	and	38.6(d),	Appellees, SAM	AYERS	AND	CLAUDIA	AYERS,	respecMully	request addiQonal	Qme	to	file	their	Appellees’	Brief	in	response	to the	Brief	of	Appellant, Introduc)on 1.	Appellants	are	BarreW	Wakefield	and	Howard	Wakefield III.	Appellees are	Sam	Ayers	and	Claudia	Ayers. 2.	Appellant	Howard	Wakefield	seeks	an	extension to	file	his	Appellants’	Brief	in	response	to	the	Brief	of Appellees Sam	and	Claudia	Ayers ACCEPTED 01-14-00648-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/3/2015 10:54:42 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK3.	This	is	Appellants’	request	for	an	extension	of	Qme	to	file their	Appellants’	Brief.

Grounds	for	Mo)on
Currently	I	am	right	in	the	middle	of	Chapter	11	reorganizaQon	with	ThinAir Wireless	Inc.	and	due	to	all	of	the	happenings	with	this	case,	an	extension	would help	also	facilitate	for	me	to	potenQally	have	the	resources	to	hire	an	aWorney	to represent	me	in	this	parQcular	case.		Recently	I	did	have	a	legal	opinion	leWer completed	which	I	am	aWaching	that	will	be	part	of	the	brief	if	indeed	an extension	is	hopefully	granted.		AddiQonally,	I	just received the	Appellees	brief and	would	like	the	opportunity	to	respond	to	it	as	well.

Respectfully submitted,

By: Howard Wakefield, appellant represented pro se (currently) February 2, 2015
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Report of Joystar, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
for the for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Alverson,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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

/s/ William Alverson
-------------------------------------
William Alverson
Chief Executive Officer
April 17, 2007