alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel Antonio GUZMAN-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41232 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

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

Miguel Antonio Guzman-Castro, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Antonio Guzman-Castro 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). Guzman-Castro 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 nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the AP-' PEAL 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.7

                                    ADDENDUM
                                       TO
                    INFORMATION ARCHITECTS CORPORATION F/K/A
                          ALYDAAR SOFTWARE CORPORATION
                            OMNIBUS STOCK OPTION PLAN

         THIS ADDENDUM is effective as of the 25th day of May, 2001 to the
INFORMATION ARCHITECTS CORPORATION F/K/A ALYDAAR SOFTWARE CORPORATION OMNIBUS
STOCK OPTION PLAN ("Plan") pursuant to the approval by the shareholders of
Information Architects Corporation, as recorded in the minutes of the 2001
Information Architects Corporation Annual Shareholder Meeting, dated May 25,
2001. The provisions of this Addendum are hereby made a part of the Plan. Should
a conflict exist among the provisions of the Plan, the Exhibits thereto and this
Addendum, the provision of this Addendum shall control. Any terms in capital
letters not defined in this Addendum shall have the meaning set forth in the
Plan.

1. Article V, Section 5.1 (General) is amended so that the number of Shares for
which Awards may be granted under the Plan is increased to from three million
(3,000,000) to four million (4,000,000).



By: /s/ Robert F. Gruder
    -----------------------------------------
    Robert F. Gruder, Chief Executive Officer
    President and Chairman
#### PEOPLE *v.*COOLEY.

Criminal Law — Constitutional Right — Representation by Counsel.

Failure of trial court to act on request of defendant, charged with sale of nareotics and possession of narcotics, that his court-appointed attorney be discharged, made in 2 letters to judge, was a denial of defendant’s constitutionally guaranteed right to represent himself at trial, even though defendant went to trial represented by the attorney he had sought to discharge, and did not raise the issue of representation again until just before sentence (Const 1963, art 1, § 13; CLS 1961, §§ 335.152, 335.153).

References for Points in Headnote

■ 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 309, 310, 321.

*603Appeal from Genesee, Parker (Donn D.), J.

Submitted Division 2 January 10, 1968, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 2,388.)

Decided June 3, 1968.

Ernest R. Cooley, also known as Skeeter, was convicted on a jury verdict of possession of narcotics and sale of narcotics. Defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengo ski,*Solicitor General, *Robert F. Leonard,*Prosecuting Attorney, and *Donald A. Kuebler*and *Paul G. Miller, Jr.,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for tbe people.

*William 0. Kelly, Jr.,*for defendant on appeal.

Canham, J.

Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence on the charges of the sale of narcotics1 and possession of narcotics2 on October 25, 1965.

The record shows that before trial the defendant, in two letters addressed to the trial court, indicated dissatisfaction with his court-appointed attorney. In the last letter the defendant stated, “Thus I’m asking or should I say submitting a motion of dismissal of the following court-appointed attorney.” The record shows that the trial court did not act on these letters and that defendant went to trial represented by the court-appointed attorney he sought to discharge.

(■ The trial record indicates that the issue of representation was not raised again until just prior to sentence.

The Constitution of 1963 provides in art 1, § 13, as follows:

*604“A suitor in any court of this state has the right to prosecute or defend his suit, either in his own proper person or by an attorney.”

The trial court, in failing to act on the request of the defendant, denied him his constitutionally guaranteed right to represent himself at trial. See *People*v. *Henley*(1965), 2 Mich App 54.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Lesinski, C. J., and McGregor, J., concurred.

1

 OLS 1961, 335.152 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev 18.1122).

2

 CLS 1961, 335.153 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev 18.1123). 1S.fl~3). (stat Ann 1957 1~cv � 1S.fl~3).
EXHIBIT 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David K. Spohr, Senior Vice President and Director of Fund Administration of the Managing Owner,
Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing Owner), of Futures Strategic Trust (the Trust), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Trusts Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David K. Spohr                                       
|David K. Spohr                                           
|Senior Vice President and Director of Fund Administration
|November 14, 2006
| 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | To      my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations      of the Company as of and for the period covered by the    Report. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      March 31, 2010 | By:   | /s/ Adiv Baruch                           |
|--------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                           |            | Adiv      Baruch                          |
|                           |            | Chief      Executive Officer andPresident |

----
#### Fatima MUSTAFA; Kamal Mustafa, Debtors-Appellants, v. PENNYMAC CORP., BY PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, its Servicing Agent, Creditor-Appellee, Timothy P. Branigan, Trustee. Fatima Mustafa; Kamal Mustafa, Debtors-Appellants, v. PMT NPL Financing 2015-1, by Penny-Mac Loan Services, LLC, Its Servicing Agent, Creditor-Appellee, Timothy P. Branigan, Trustee,

No. 17-1414, No. 17-1416

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

Fatima Mustafa, Kamal Mustafa, Appellants Pro Se. Christina Marie Williamson, BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Fatima and Kamal Mustafa appeal from the district court’s orders affirming two orders of the bankruptcy court granting the Appel-lees’ motion for relief from the automatic stay in order to proceed with post-foreclosure sale actions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Mustafa v. Penny-Mac Corp.,*No. 8:16-cv-00494-PJM.; *Mustafa v. PMT NPL Financing,*No. 8:16-cv-00523-PJM (D. Md. Filed Mar. 29, 2017, and entered Mar. 30, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### Harold BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAXX, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1555

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 28, 2017

Decided: October 13, 2017

Harold Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Weddington, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Harold Boyd appeals the district court’s order dismissing his employment discrimination action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Boyd. v. Jaxx, LLC,*No. 3:17-cv-00135-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be*760fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 18

June 10, 2008

Toys R Us, Inc.

One
Geoffrey Way

Wayne, New Jersey 07470

Dear Sirs/Madams:

At your request, we have read the description included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 3, 2008, of the facts relating to the February 3, 2008 changes in valuing the domestic merchandise inventories (62% of consolidated merchandise inventories) from the lower of cost or market as determined by retail inventory methods to the
lower of cost or market as determined by cost methods as follows:



| |  |  | 37% of merchandise inventories were previously valued at retail LIFO (last-in, first out) and were converted to LIFO cost;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | 18% of merchandise inventories were previously valued at retail FIFO (first-in, first out) and were converted to weighted average cost; and
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | 7% of merchandise inventories were previously valued at retail LIFO and were converted to weighted average cost.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We believe, on the basis of the facts so set forth and other information furnished to us by appropriate officials of the Company, that the accounting changes described
in your Form 10-Q are to an alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the circumstances.

We have not audited any consolidated financial
statements of Toys R Us, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period subsequent to February 2, 2008. Therefore, we are unable to express, and we do not express, an opinion on the facts set forth in the
above-mentioned Form 10-Q, on the related information furnished to us by officials of the Company, or on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of Toys R Us, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or
for any period subsequent to February 2, 2008.

Yours truly,

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

New York, New York
1 

### Sutton, Tia

From: Timothy.Mullins@dot.gov Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 7:02 PM To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov; Chad_A._Lallemand@ omb.eop.gov Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov; Sutton, Tia; Hengst, Benjamin; Spears, Matthew Subject: FW: Summary of interagency comments received under EO 12866 and EO 13563 review of draft NPRM Attachments: NHTSA EPA Response to OMB Comments on Rebound 15061 7 1830.docx

Good evening, Attached please find our responses to your June 17 , 2015 written interagency comments on Preamble Sec tion IX Rebound. Thanks, Tim

-----Original Message----- From: Achanta, Chandana L. [mailto:Chandana_L._Acha nta@omb.eop.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:46 PM To: Timothy.Mullins@dot.gov; Spears, Matthew; Hengs t, Benjamin Cc: Whiteman, Chad Subject: Summary of interagency comments received u nder EO 12866 and EO 13563 review of draft NPRM

Hi All

As a follow-up, please find attached a summary docu ment of interagency working comments received on th e draft NPRM under EO 12866 and EO 13563 review.

Thanks Chandana
EXHIBIT 32.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Marcie Corbin, Chief Financial Officer of Westmont Resources Inc. (the "Company"), hereby 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:




(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company, for the fiscal year ended 31 May 2010, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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











By: /s/ MARCIE CORBIN


Name: MARCIE CORBIN


Title:   CFO / Director


(Principal Financial Officer)





Date: Tuesday, 14 September 2010





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Core Solutions,
Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Core Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Core Solutions, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



Date:  April 15, 2004


By:         /S/ EDWARD MIERS
            -----------------------------------------
Name:       Edward Miers
Title:      President and Principal Executive Officer











                                       34
<PAGE>
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the cita tion of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion ma y contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 vs. NO. 31,695 4 JOSE GARCIA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 William C. Birdsall, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 The Rio Law Firm 12 Francis J. Rio, III 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellant 152 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 GARCIA, Judge. 2 Summary affirmance was proposed for the reason stated in the notice of 3 proposed disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has been filed, 4 and the time for doing so has expired. 5 Affirmed. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

8 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 9

WE CONCUR: 10

11 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 12

13 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 14
#### Carithers, executor, *v.*Flanigan.

Bell, Justice.

A person wlio was a devisee sued tlie executor of the will for (1) specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land alleged to have been made by the testator; (2) a decree of title in the plaintiff as to a separate tract of land, claimed by her under a deed from the testator, and called herein tract No. 2; (3) an order requiring the executor *245to assent to a legacy in favor of the plaintiff; (4) recovery of a sum. claimed by the plaintiff as rent on tract No. 2, but alleged to have been collected by the defendant; (5) an accounting. The petition alleged that the defendant refused to recognize the plaintiff’s claim to either of the tracts of land mentioned, and was interfering with her possession of tract No. 2. The-defendant was sued both as executor and as an individual, and he demurred to the petition in both capacities. In response to the demurrer filed by him in his individual capacity, and sustained with leave to amend, the plaintiff amended her petition by striking the name of the defendant as a party in the latter capacity. After this amendment, the defendant as executor renewed all grounds of the original demurrer filed by him in that capacity, including grounds of general demurrer, and demurred to the petition as amended, upon the grounds, among others, that it contained a misjoinder of causes of action, in that each of the asserted grounds for relief as stated above was improperly joined with the others. The court overruled the demurrer last filed, both as to renewal of former grounds and as to the additional grounds. The defendant excepted. Erom the brief filed in this court it appears that the plaintiff in error is insisting here only upon the grounds of demurrer as to misjoinder of causes of action against the defendant as executor, as urged in the last demurrer. *Held:*

No. 13132.

May 15, 1940.

*G. A. Johns, Gha/ries L.*Henry, and *R. H.*Kimball, for plaintiff in error.

*Joe Quillimi*and *Robert L.*Russell, contra.

The several grounds of complaint were connected with the same estate and with the conduct of the defendant as executor thereof. These facts supplied such a common connection between the several causes of action as to render it proper for a court of equity to determine all of them in one suit. *Brown*v. *Latham,*92 *Ga.*280 (18 S. E. 421); *Conley*v. *Buck,*100 *Ga.*187 (28 S. E. 97) ; *Miller*v. *Jones,*136 *Ga.*428 (2, 3) (71 S. E. 910) ; *Wade*v. *Saussy,*149 *Ga.*340 (100 S. E. 106) ; *Powell*v. *McKinney,*151 *Ga.*803 (4) (108 S. E. 231); *Wimberly*v. *Ross,*152 *Ga.*258 (109 S. E. 500) ; *Battle*v. *Royster Guano Co.,*155 *Ga.*322 (118 S. E. 343) ; *Hermann*v. *Mobley,*172 *Ga.*380 (3) (158 S. E. 38); *Gormley*v. *Wilson,*176 *Ga.*711 (168 S. E. 568); *Swann*v. *Wright,*180 *Ga.*323 (179 S. E. 86); *Walters*v. *Suarez,*188 *Ga.*190 (3) (3 S. E. 2d, 575) ; *Benton*v. *Turk,*188 *Ga.*710 (7) (4 S. E. 2d, 580). The case differs on its facts from *McCowan*v. *Snook,*175 *Ga.*430 (165 S. E. 84), and *Longino*v. *Bearden,*177 *Ga.*353 (170 S. E. 237), where there was no common nexus.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concw.*
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge,
on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 filed on the date hereof 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) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    LEO M.
CHUPASKALeo M. ChupaskaChief Financial Officer,Mohegan Tribal Gaming AuthorityAugust 19, 2009


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.