alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Deon Michael Price, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00011

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Williamson County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 17

- 07703

- 1 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of the

court below. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in part, and reverse the judgment in part. Specifically, we affirm that portion of the judgment finding Appellant guilty of the offense of driving while intoxicated. We reverse that portion of the judgment pertaining to the punishment

an d remand the case for a new punishment hearing

. We note that the appellant, Deon Michael Price, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 5
, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dylan MARON Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4396

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 28, 2017

Filed: December 28, 2017

Martin Conboy, IV, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Nebraska, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Dylan Marón, Pro Se

Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Dylan Marón directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to participating in a drug conspiracy, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has requested leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning whether the sentence is reasonable. Marón has also filed a pro se supplemental brief, challenging the validity of the plea agreement. The government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and should be enforced as to the issues on appeal, because our review of the record demonstrates that Maron entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); and because the arguments fall within the scope of the waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 76,109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, grant counsel leave to withdraw, and dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Court Judge for the District of Nebraska.
EPA Reg. No. 241-74

Vol. 3
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 1, 2011 

p0525 

Order 

 

June 1, 2011 

141966 

BATES ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141966 

 COA: 288826 

Wayne CC: 08-113819-CK 

132 ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., 

 Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

SAULT STE. 

MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 14, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned, Robert S. Herlin, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Natural Gas Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies in connection with the
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report")")
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company as of
and for the periods covered in the Report.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
22nd day of May, 2006.


                        /s/ ROBERT S. HERLIN
                        --------------------------------
                        Robert S. Herlin
                        Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Natural Gas Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Natural Gas
Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request. The foregoing certificate is being furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to this Form 10-QSB and shall
not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-QSB.
No. 11-9763.

#### Doss *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 12th Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Robert TALBOT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-70826

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 28, 2017

Peter Gibbons, Law Office of Gibbons *&*Associates, Carson City, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant

Robert Talbot, Pro Se

Thomas J. Clark, Supervisory Attorney, Gretchen M. Wolfinger, Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal *422Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Talbot appeals from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, permitting the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to proceed with an action to collect Talbot’s federal income tax liability for tax years 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo conclusions of law and for clear error questions of fact. *Johanson v. Comm’r,*541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly determined that the Commissioner sent a final notice of deficiency to Talbot’s last known address for each tax year in question. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6212(b)(1) (a notice of deficiency addressed to the taxpayer’s last known address suffices for purposes of notice); *United States v. Zolla,*724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that Postal Form 3877 is highly probative and is sufficient, in the absence of contrary evidence, to show that the notice of deficiency was properly made).

We reject as unsupported by the record Talbot’s contention that the Tax Court failed to consider his testimony.

We do not consider issues that were not raised in the opening brief. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

          - [Docket No. APHIS-2022-0006]

# AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is correcting a notice that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on March 8, 2022. The notice announced APHIS' intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the Horse Protection Program and enforcement of the Horse Protection Act. We provided an invalid telephone number for one of the contacts listed under                         **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                        . This notice provides the correct telephone number.                    

# DATES:

This correction is applicable on March 29, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

## Correction

                        In FR Doc. 2022-04791, appearing on page 12927 in the                         **Federal Register**                         of March 8, 2022, the following correction is made:                    

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:**                         For information on the Horse Protection Act Regulations, contact Dr. Lance Bassage, Director, National Policy Staff, Animal Care, APHIS 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3748. For information on the information collection reporting process, contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483;                         *joseph.moxey@usda.gov*.                    

Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of March 2022.

Anthony Shea,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 2022-06489 Filed 3-28-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abram Paul WALTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-30037

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 16, 2018

Edward Bryan Wilson, III, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jo Ann Farrington, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Abram Paul Walter, Pro Se

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, 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 **

Abram Paul Walter appeals from the district court’s order granting authorization for funds to be paid from his inmate trust account toward his restitution obligation, the court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of that order, and the court’s amended judgment establishing a restitution payment schedule. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Walter’s *449counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Walter the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.1**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

Thecertification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

November 12,2009

 

CharlesT. Chrietzberg, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of Northern CaliforniaBancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

a.               thatthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2009 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

b.              thatinformation contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ Charles T.  Chrietzberg, Jr. |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Charles T.  Chrietzberg, Jr.     |
|   | Chief Executive Officer               |
|   | and President                         |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned executive officer of First Federal Bancshares ofArkansas, Inc. (the “Registrant”) hereby certifies that the Registrant’s Form 10-Qfor the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.

 

 
|                               | By:    | /s/ Sherri R. Billings  |
|------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                               |   | Sherri R. Billings      |
|                               |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|                               |   |                    |
| Date:  November 23, 2009 |   |                    |

 

----
* 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

September 18, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41302

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAMIRO MATA-ORTIZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-459-ALL

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ramiro Mata-Ortiz (Mata) appeals following his guilty plea to being

illegally present in the United States following a prior deportation, in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). The district court increased Mata’s base offense level

by 16 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because it determined that

Mata’s prior conviction inTennessee for reckless aggravated assault was a crime

of violence. Mata argues that the enhancement was improper because the

Tennessee offense is broader than the generic, contemporary meaning of
No. 05-41302

2

aggravated assault. Mata’s argument is unavailing in light of our decision in

United States v. Mungia-Portillo, 484 F.3d 813, 816-17 (5th Cir. 2007).

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Mata also

challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)'s treatment of prior felony and

aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the

offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is “fully

foreclosed from further debate.” United States v.Pineda-Arrellano, ___F.3d ___,

2007 WL 2033992, *1 (5th Cir. July 17, 2007).

AFFIRMED.
#### Keith Lamar BLACKWELL Plaintiff-Appellant v. Charlie A. DOOLEY, County Executive; Garry W. Earls, Chief Operating Officer; Herbert Bernsen, Director, St. Louis County Justice Center; Gerald Kramer; Dolores Gunn; Unknown Rodnick, Head Doctor; Rita Hendrix, Nurse Manager; Philip Wenger; Janet Duwe; F. Rottnek; Andrew Moore Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-4470

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: January 22, 2018

Filed: January 25, 2018

Keith Lamar Blackwell, Pro Se

Priscilla F. Gunn, St. Louis County . Counselor’s Office, Michael Edward Hughes, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellee Gerald Kramer

Priscilla F. Gunn, St. Louis County Counselor’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appellees Dolores Gunn, Janet Duwe

Weldon N. Johnson, Weldon N. Johnson, Attorney at Law, Florissant, MO, for Defendant-Appellee Philip Wenger

*425Christine A. Vaporean, Teresa Michelle Young, Brown & James, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellee F. Rottnek

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Keith Blackwell, a former pretrial detainee at the St. Louis County Justice Center, appeals an adverse decision by the district court1 granting summary judgment on his deliberate-indifference claims against a doctor and a pharmacist at the St. Louis County Justice Center.2

Upon careful *de novo*review, we conclude that the district court’s decision was proper. *See Beaulieu v. Ludeman,*690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (“We review summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”). The record established beyond genuine controversy that the medical treatment Blackwell received did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference and that Blackwell merely disagreed with the treatment he received. *See Jackson v. Buckman,*756 F.3d 1060, 1065 (8th Cir. 2014) (explaining that, to prevail on a claim of deliberate indifference, a pretrial detainee must show more than even gross negligence); *Nelson v. Shuffman,*603 F.3d 439, 449 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that an inmate’s “mere difference of opinion over matters of expert medical judgment or a course of medical treatment fail[s] to rise to the level of a constitutional violation”). Moreover, Blackwell did not establish that he suffered any detrimental effect from the alleged delays in his medical treatment. *See Jackson v. Riebold,*815 F.3d 1114, 1119-20 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating that an inmate must place verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the detrimental effect of a delay in medical treatment).

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Blackwell’s pending motions as moot.

1

. The Honorable Noelle Collins, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pur-suantto 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

2

. The dispositions of Blackwell’s other claims were not meaningfully challenged on appeal either in his original opening brief or in his amended opening brief. *See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp.,*481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir. 2007).
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, David M Long, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Biofield Corp.
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

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


Date: December 16, 2003                By: /s/ DAVID M. LONG
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           David M. Long, Jr., M.D., Ph.D.
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)


                                       24
EXHIBIT 99.2
CERTIFICATION  OF  CHIEF  FINANCIAL  OFFICER

                                VILLAGEWORLD.COM
                            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  Quarterly  Report  of  VillageWorld.Com,  (the "Small
Business  Issuer")  on  Form  10-QSB  for  the three-month period and nine-month
period  ended  September  30,  2003  as  filed  with the Securities and Exchange
Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"), I, Celia I. Schiffner, Chief
Financial  Officer  of  VillageWorld.Com,  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  and  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
Small  Business  Issuer.

/s/  Celia  I.  Schiffner
-------------------------
Celia  I.  Schiffner
Chief  Financial  Officer
November  14,  2003

<PAGE>
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

2008 Lexus, TX Lic No KTD3353, * From the 244 th District Court

VIN No 2T2HK31U48C095370 and of E ctor County,

One Thousand Eight Dollars ($1008.00) Trial Court No. C

- 21

- 11

- 1248

- CV.

United States Currency,

Vs. No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 138

- C V * March 16, 2023

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorand um Opinion

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J., and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t he appeal

should be dismissed for want of prosecution . Therefore, in accordance with this

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.