alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PEOPLE *v.*TARGUS.

Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, "Wood (Andrew C.), J.

Submitted October 7, 1968, at Detroit.

(Docket No. 3,190.)

Decided October 22, 1968.

Joseph Targus was convicted of careless driving. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, *William L. Gahalan,*Prosecuting Attorney, *Samuel J. Torina,*Chief Appellate Lawyer, and *Angelo A. Pentolino,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*Ronald R. Stempien,*for defendant.

Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged with and convicted of careless driving. PA 1965, No 262 (MCLA § 257.626[b], [Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 9.2326(2)]).

On appeal defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to establish that he was the operator of the motor vehicle which had struck the complainant’s car from the rear.

A review of the record discloses ample evidence to sustain the conviction.

Affirmed.

J. H. Gillis, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Kelley, JJ., concurred.
Kody Christian ROACH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2621

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.6







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 Annual Report of
Brookfield Office Properties Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bryan K. Davis, Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:



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



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|By: | /s/
        Bryan K. Davis________________________
        Bryan
        K. Davis
        Chief
        Financial Officer
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                          



March 30, 2012
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leonel GUALDRON-LAMUS, also known as El Electrico, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40057 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 5, 2017

Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, Ernest' Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Robert Jackson Herrington, Plano, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, PRADO, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Leonel Gualdron-Lamus appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture and distribute cocaine. He argues that the district court plainly erred in not applying a two-level “safety valve” reduction to his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(17). To the extent his appeal waiver precludes this claim, he also “invokes” the waiver’s reserved exception for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to object to the lack of a § 2D1.1(b)(17) reduction. The Government moves for summary dismissal of the appeal based upon the appeal waiver or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief.

We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. *See United States v. Baymon, 3*12 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir. 2002). The written plea agreement and the rearraignment transcript reflect that Gualdron-La-mus knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the appeal waiver, making the appeal waiver enforceable. *See United States v. Portillo,*18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). Gualdron-Lamus’s challenge to his sentence does not fall within the exceptions to the appeal waiver for a claim that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum and for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, his appeal is barred by the waiver. *See United States v. Bond,*414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005).

To the extent that Gualdron-Lamus is raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, the record is not sufficiently developed to permit direct review of this claim. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Because that is usually the case, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the preferred method for raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. *See Massaro v. United States,*538 U.S. 500, 503-09, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). The appeal is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice to Gualdron-Lamus’s right to pursue an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a § 2255 proceeding. We GRANT the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal, and we DENY the Government’s alterna*325tive motion for an extension of time to file a brief.

*

 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 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report of VendingData Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/Afor the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Steven J. Blad,Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and John R. Spina, ChiefFinancial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

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

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.
| By:    | /s/  Steven J. Blad                    | Dated: |   | December  9, 2003 |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------|
|   | Steven  J. Blad                        |   |   |              |
| Title: | Chief  Executive Officer and President |   |   |              |
|   |                                   |   |   |              |
| By:    | /s/  John R. Spina                     | Dated: |   | December  9, 2003 |
|   | John  R. Spina                         |   |   |              |
| Title: | Chief  Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |   |              |

 

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

 

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7450

LEWIS E. JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Chairman, Virginia

Parole Board,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-786-AM)

Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lewis E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Johnson v. Tucker, No. CA-97-786-AM (E.D.

Va. Sept. 12, 1997). 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
MP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0180

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRANDON LEE CRAFT,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and

including July 26, 2024, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 13 2024

06/13/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0180
# STATEOF LOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JOSEPH M. BRISTER NO. 

### 2021 KW 1436 JANUARY 31, 

### 2022 

### In Re; Joseph M. Brister, 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs,



### 22nd Judicial 

### District 

### Court, Parish of St. 

## Tammany, No. 

### 395, 328. BEFORE: MCDONALD, 

### ZANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ.



### WRIT DENIED. JMM WIL EW

COURT OF A EAL, F RST CIRCUIT 

# L DEPUTY" CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arturo PEREZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-41610 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, for Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Arturo Perez-Rodriguez, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Arturo Perez-Rodriguez 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). Perez-Rodriguez 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.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3186

___________________________

Robert Lee Johnson, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Dexter Payne, Director, ADC; Rory Griffin, Medical Director, ADC; Ronald

Stukey, Doctor, Randall L. Williams Unit (Originally named as Stukey)

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

Ayman Alshami, Cardiologist, Jefferson Regional Medical Center (Originally

named as Alshami)

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant

Patti Conley, Health Care Administrator, Randall L. Williams Unit (Originally

named as Conley); Gaylon Lay, Warden, Randall L. Williams Unit

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff

 ____________

 Submitted: April 28, 2020

Filed: May 1, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________
Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Arkansas inmate Robert Lee Johnson, Jr.

appeals following the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment. Johnson

offers no valid basis for reversal, and we find none. See Brewington v. Keener, 902

F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir. 2018) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment,

drawing all reasonable inferences, without resorting to speculation, in nonmoving

party’s favor); see also Giles v. Godinez, 914 F.3d 1040, 1053 (7th Cir. 2019) (court

may, in its discretion, appoint expert witness when expert’s specialized knowledge

will assist court in understanding evidence or deciding facts at issue); Phillips v.

Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (reviewing for abuse of discretion

denial of appointment of counsel in civil case; listing criteria). The judgment is

affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and Johnson’s pending motion for appointment of

counsel is denied as moot.

______________________________

1The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Beth M. Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

-2-
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-08-00528-CR IN RE Alfred GARCIA Original Mandamus Proceedings 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 30, 2008
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On July 22, 2008, relator filed a petition for wr it of mandamus, asking this court to order the trial court to hold a hear ing and grant his motion for spee dy trial. Mr. Tony Jimenez has been appointed to represent rela tor in the trial court. We conc lude that appointed counsel for relator is also his counsel for an orig inal proceeding on the issues presented. A trial court cannot be found to have abus ed its discretion until the complainant establishes that the court (1) had a legal duty to perform a non-discretionar y act, (2) was asked to perform the act, and (3) failed or refused to do so. O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals , 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992); Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). When a motion is pr operly filed and pending before a trial court,

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2007-CR-11340 and 2007-CR-11341, styled State of Texas v. Alfred Garcia , pending in the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sharon MacRae.04-08-00528-CR
the act of considering an d ruling upon that motion is a ministerial act. In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Respondent, however, has no duty to rule on re lator’s pro se request s because relator is represented by appointed counsel, and relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick
v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Consequently, the respondent did not violate relator’s rights. Therefor e, this court has determined that relator is not entitled to the relief sought, and the petition is DENIED. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a). Relator is encouraged to refrain from filing further pro se petitions regarding his pending criminal proceedings. 2
PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

2 We further note that relator’s mandamus was postmarked on July 15, 2008, but not filed with this court until July 22, 2008 and the Bexar County District Clerk shows that relator was sentenced in cause #2007-CR-11340 on July 18, 2008 and that cause #2007-CR-11341 was dismissed as part of the agreement.

- 2 -
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Charles Miller, Appellant.

Submitted April 14,1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*Ray F. Fowler*for appellant.

*Daniel J. O’Mara, District Attorney (Stephen K. Pollard*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Lehman, Ch. J., and Finch, J.
#### Jonathan JORDAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Travis BRAGG, Warden, FCI Bennettsville, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6020

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 10, 2017

Decided: May 22, 2017

Jonathan Jordan, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Jordan, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Jordan v. Bragg,*No. 9:16-cv-02130-BHH, 2016 WL 7111703 (D.S.C. Dec. 7, 2016). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
In re David

Rodriguez Appellant/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 21, 2014

No. 04-14-00112-CV

IN RE David RODRIGUEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On February 18, 2014, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has

considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The

court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on February 21st, 2014.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21 st day of February, 2014

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010PC2639, styled Maria I. Rodriguez, An Incapacitated Person

, pending in the Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer presiding.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ivan Rangel HERNANDEZ, also known as Ivan Hernandez, also known as Ivan Rangel-Hernandez, also known as Ivan N. Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20693 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 5, 2017

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

Ivan Rangel Hernandez, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ivan Rangel Hernandez 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Hernandez has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Hernandez’s response. 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 Cm. 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                           0001004605
<NAME>                                          Augment Systems, Inc.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         82,201
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               82,201
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 82,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,802,466
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                      124,989
<OTHER-SE>                                  1,845,254
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   82,201
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               65,849
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             90,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (155,849)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)



</TABLE>