alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 18

- 00583

- CR Jose Manuel HERNANDEZ PEREZ , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 289th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CR4049 Honorable Daphne Previti Austin , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 31, 2018
DISMISSED The clerk’s record has been filed in this case. The clerk’s record contains the trial court’s Rule 25.2 certification, which does not show appellant has the right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2. We issued an order notifying appellant that this appeal would be dismissed within 30 days of the order if two conditions were met: (1) a certification or amended certification showing appellant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record; and (2) the trial court’s certification is not defective

. See id. R. 25.2(d) (requiring us to dismiss a criminal appeal if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record ).04

- 18

- 00583

- CR

- 2

- Because no amended certification showing appellant has the right of appeal has been m ade part of the appellate record, the only issue is whether the trial court’s certification is defective in the notification of the defendant’s appellate rights. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding court of appeals must deter mine whether the certification is defective )

. The trial court’s certification states this is a plea bargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal. See R. 25.2(a); see also T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN . art. 44.02. The clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed b y the trial court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant in the plea bargain agreement. See R. 25.2(a). The clerk’s record also does not show the trial court granted appellant permis sion to appeal or contain any matters that were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. See id. Appellant’s counsel has filed a response confirming that the trial court’s certification is not defective and stating appellant has no right of appe al. We conclude the trial court’s certification is not defective in its notification of the defendant’s appellate rights. Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal. See id. R. 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
# Annual Operation Deep Freeze delivers fuel to Antarctica 

/ Published Feb. 22, 2016
MCMURDO STATION, Antarctica, 
Defense Logistics Agency Energy continued its annual support of Operation Deep Freeze in Antarctica with this year’s delivery of fuel. 

The organization’s part of the mission began May 29 when it was contacted to fulfill fuel requirements and concluded with the delivery of almost 5 million gallons of fuels to McMurdo Station, Antarctica, Feb. 3.

“Each year, DLA Energy and the Military Sealift Command execute the Operation Deep Freeze resupply mission in support of the National Science Foundation,” said Trina Wadley, contracting officer with Bulk Petroleum Products’ Overseas Europe and Africa team. 

During the latest refueling mission, the Maersk Peary oil tanker was loaded with 3.5 million gallons of AN8 jet fuel, 1.2 million gallons of JP5 aviation turbine fuel and 120,000 gallons of motor gasoline Dec. 18.

“Our mission, supporting science around the continent takes us to some of the coldest places on earth. The AN8 is specially formulated to have a freezing point of -58 degrees Celsius or lower so it can be used by aircraft and generations in these remote and extreme locations,” said Margaret Knuth, Antarctic Infrastructure and Logistics operations manager with the NSF. “We need JP5 to resupply the USCG Icebreaker Polar Star. The Polar Star breaks a channel to the station that allows for the cargo and fuel resupply to happen.” 

“DLA Energy feels honored to play such an intricate role in such a vital mission,” Wadley said. 

Operation Deep Freeze began in the late 1950s as a free-standing U.S. military mission in the Antarctic.  The name now refers to the U.S. military’s logistical support component of the NSF-managed U.S. Antarctic Program.
No. 10-6281.

#### Renna Ostoposides, Petitioner v. Donald Bunting, et al.

562 U.S. 1031, 131 S. Ct. 570,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8766.

178 L. Ed. 2d 417,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
February 15, 1974

The Honorable Wilson E. Speir

Director Opinion No. 

### H- 231 Texas Department of Public Safety Box 4087 Austin, Texas 78773 Re: Whether deposition in court proceeding is subject to limitation of Open Records Act. Dear Colonel Speir: The head ofthe Personnel Department of the Department of Public Safety has been nerved by the defendant in **a** civil suitwith a subpoena to give a deposition onwritten questions concerning the employment records of an individual who is plaintiff inthe suit. The Department of Public Safety is nota party to the wit. Your letter requesting our advice an to whether the entire personnel record ofyour employee should be produced inanswer to the questions cites 53(a)(2) ofArticle 6252-17a, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, the Open Records Law. That subsection excepts from mandatory disclosure under the Act certain information inpersonnel files. The request for the information however, was not made under the Open Records Act. Rather, **it was**  made pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure having to dowith depositions (Ruler 189to 198). Rule 177a. authorizing a subpoena duces tecum, authorizes the court inwhich the action is pending to quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive. Rule 186b authorizes the same court to enter a protective order limiting the scope of examination ona deposition onmotion ofaparty or the deponent. Thus, ifyour department or the subject employee feels that the deposition and subpoena are reaching matters which are confidential **and** should notbe revealed under compulsion, the Rules furnish the remedy and the Open Records Act does

p. 1078The Honorable Wilson 

### E. Speir, page 2 (H-231)

notauthorire thir office to issue 

### any sort of directive thatyou should or should not obey the subpoena. We therefore advise you that, indetermining howand towhat extent a subpoena issued ina civil care should be obeyed, resort should be had tothe protective devices provided bythe Rules of Civil Procedure. The Open Records Act, Article 6252-17a, V. T. C.S., does notapply tothe situation. SUMMARY The Open Records **Act** and its exceptions have no bearing uponthe scope of the testimony of awitness taken in a civil proceeding pursuant toa notice and subpoena issued under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Your8 very truly,

**Attorney** General ofTexas

DAVID M. KENDALL. Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 1079
#### Douglas Elliman LLC, Appellant, v Shoshana Tal, Also Known as Shoshana Mendelovici, et al., Respondents.

[65 NYS3d 697]

*584Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered June 20, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from, granted so much of defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 as sought an adverse inference charge against plaintiff, for the purposes of summary judgment and trial, that defendant Tal notified plaintiff in 2008 of her employment with another real estate brokerage firm, Itzhaki Properties, and of her desire for dual licensure, to which plaintiff agreed, and to preclude plaintiff from presenting evidence to the contrary, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record demonstrates that plaintiff acted with gross negligence in destroying ESI not only after commencement of the action triggered a duty to preserve, but after defendant Tal’s deposition, in which she referenced an email exchange in which she allegedly advised plaintiff that she had started working at Itzhaki Properties, and requested dual licensure, which plaintiff approved *(see VOOM HD Holdings LLC v EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.,*93 AD3d 33, 45 [1st Dept 2012]). Accordingly, the court properly exercised its discretion in presuming the relevance of the email exchange and imposing spoliation sanctions *(id.).*Further, the court engaged in “an appropriate balancing under the circumstances” by ordering a tailored adverse inference charge limited to the alleged contents of the email exchange regarding defendant’s Tal’s work at Itzhaki Properties, and precluding plaintiff from presenting contrary evidence *(id.*at 47).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
#### Sara Myers et al., Plaintiffs, and Eric A. Seiff et al., Appellants, v Eric Schneiderman, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Submitted March 27, 2017;

decided March 30, 2017

Motion by Agudath Israel of America for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.

Chief Judge DiFiore taking no part.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q REPORT OF  REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC.  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 U.S.C. SS.SS.
1350(a) AND (b))

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), the
undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation.

Date:
August 6, 2010

/s/ STEVEN J. JANUSEK Steven J. Janusek, Chief Financial Officer


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), is not
a part of the Form 10-Q to which it refers and is, to the extent permitted by law, provided by the above signatory to the extent of his knowledge.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation and will be retained by Reddy Ice
Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
# Audit readiness progress, goals outlined at all-hands meeting  

/ Published May 12, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, DLA Finance
<PAGE>

EX-23


PAGE 59
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-20603, 33-40096, 33-40039,
33-69662, 33-88592, 333-23091, 333-39493, 333-89473, 333-54018, 333-54026,
333-71548) and Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-88588, 333-39589) of
our report dated May 13, 2002 relating to the consolidated financial statements
of Drexler Technology Corporation which appears in this Annual Report on Form
10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated May
13, 2002 relating to the financial statement schedules for Fiscal 2002, which
appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
June 19, 2002

<PAGE>

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated May 13, 2002 into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos.
33-20603, 33-40096, 33-40039, 33-69662, 33-88592, 333-23091,
333-39493,333-89473, 333-54018, 333-54026, and 333-71548) and Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-88588 and 333-39589).


                                          /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

San Jose, California
June 17, 2002
No. 09-1485.

#### American Road & Transportation Builders Association, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

562 U.S. 836, 131 S. Ct. 388,

178 L. Ed. 2d 38,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6023.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

*39Same case below, 388 U.S. App. D.C. 435, 588 F.3d 1109.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pedro Morales, Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 860]

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mar*488garet L. Clancy, J.), rendered April 5, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of course of sexual conduct against a child, and sentencing him to a term of 13 years, held in abeyance, the application by assigned counsel to withdraw on the ground that there are no non-frivolous issues to be raised on appeal *(People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]), is denied, and the time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the March 2018 Term of this Court.

Counsel states that defendant validly waived his right to appeal, thus foreclosing any challenge to the length of the sentence imposed. However, a nonfrivolous argument could be made that the written waiver of appeal signed by defendant is invalid *(see People v Powell,*140 AD3d 401 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 1074 [2016]; *People v Santiago,*119 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2014], *lv denied*24 NY3d 964 [2014]). We note that the written waiver in this case contains different language than those waivers found invalid in *Powell*and *Santiago,*and the court here conducted a thorough oral colloquy. This issue requires briefing. Absent a valid waiver of the right to appeal, an excessive sentence issue survives.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Singh, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 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 Covansys Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin
C. Clague, Chief Executive Officer and President 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 results of operations
of the Company. /s/ Martin C. Clague Martin C. Clague
Chief Executive Officer and President
August 4, 2004
No. 10-6975.

#### Daniel LaBrake, Petitioner v. Paul Stowitzky, et al.

562 U.S. 1072, 131 S. Ct. 668,

178 L. Ed. 2d 497,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9267.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# DLA’s senior enlisted advisor visits Distribution San Diego command staff

/ Published July 18, 2016
SAN DIEGO, California, 
Defense Logistics Agency’s Army Command Sgt. Maj. Charles Tobin visited DLA Distribution San Diego, Calif., on July 6 to meet with site commander, Navy Capt. John Soracco and the command staff. 
DLA’s senior enlisted advisor spent time with employees, thanking them for the work they do and extending his thankfulness to their families. “I enjoy meeting with as many of the 25,000 DLA workforce employees who are providing the service to the military forces.”

Tobin, whose son is currently serving as a Blackhawk helicopter pilot, met with Carol Roddy, transportation officer at DLA Distribution San Diego, to discuss the importance of high-priority shipments being delivered on time, every time, especially when a mission is at stake.

“It was a great pleasure to see CSM Tobin during his visit to San Diego,“ said Roddy. “I used this opportunity to explain the frustrations in working in Transportation sometimes. Having served in the military, I know waiting for high-priority shipments to be delivered can cause added pressure to situations.”

Additionally, Tobin met with DLA Disposition’s senior west coast regional advisor, Chris “Buck” Buchanan to discuss trends and customer service DLA is providing to the nation’s largest west coast Navy fleet and warfighters in the Southern California region.

“It is always a pleasure to host DLA’s Command Sgt. Maj. in America’s finest city,” explained Soracco. “Hosting Command Sgt. Maj. Tobin at our main office was a great opportunity for our employees to meet and talk with General Busch’s senior enlisted advisor and hear what’s happening around the agency.”
EXHIBIT 3.3

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT  OF THE  AMENDED AND RESTATED  CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION  OF  DIAGNOSTIC/RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS, INC.

As authorized by Sections 242 and 103 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the undersigned being the duly authorized officer of the above corporation,
hereby amends the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation thereof, as follows:

Article
FIRST of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended to read as follows:

FIRST:    The name of the corporation is DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (hereinafter called the "corporation").

The
undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing amendment has been adopted by the unanimous vote of the board of directors and the affirmative vote of the stockholders of the
corporation in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment has been signed this 8th day of August, 1997.

| | /s/NANCY R. PITEKNANCY R. PITEK,Vice President
| | ----------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
No. 10-6169.

#### Lionel Ferrel, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 971, 131 S. Ct. 481,

178 L. Ed. 2d 304,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7946.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

*305Same case below, 603 F.3d 758.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alex Rivera, Appellant.

[57 NYS3d 434]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated July 1, 2015 *(People v Rivera,*130 AD3d 655 [2015]), determining an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 9, 2011.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
No. 10-6970.

#### Vernell D. Williams, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1050, 131 S. Ct. 614,

178 L. Ed. 2d 446,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8883.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

*447Same case below, 612 F.3d 417.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15637]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 98-13033) published on pages 
27085-27086 of the issue for Friday, May 15, 1998.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of New York heading, the entry for 
Travelers Group, Inc., New York, New York, is revised to read as 
follows:
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Betsy Buttrill White, Senior 
Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. Travelers Group Inc., New York, New York (Travelers), to become 
a bank holding company by acquiring Citicorp, New York, New York, and 
thereby indirectly acquiring Citibank, N.A., New York, New York; 
Universal Bank, N.A., Columbus, Georgia; Citibank (New York State), 
Perinton, New York; Citicorp Holdings, Inc., New Castle, Delaware; 
Citibank Delaware, New Castle, Delaware; Citibank (Nevada), N.A., Las 
Vegas, Nevada; and Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Sioux Falls, South 
Dakota. Upon consummation of the proposed transaction, Travelers would 
be renamed Citigroup Inc.. Travelers also may form one or more 
intermediate bank holding companies.
    In connection with the proposed transaction, Travelers also has 
provided notice to acquire all of the nonbank subsidiaries of Citicorp 
and to engage, directly or indirectly through the nonbank subsidiaries 
of Travelers and Citicorp, in a variety of nonbanking activities that 
have been previously determined to be permissible for bank holding 
companies.
    The comment period on this application has been extended. Comments 
on this application must be received by June 25, 1998.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 8, 1998.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-15637 Filed 6-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
No. 10-6722.

#### Donovan Anthony Moncrieffe, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1019, 131 S. Ct. 544,

178 L. Ed. 2d 399,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8439.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 319 Fed. Appx. 249.
No. 09-10610.

#### Nathaniel Martin, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 847, 131 S. Ct. 93,

178 L. Ed. 2d 59,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5811.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sam Rodari, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 615]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered January 22, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that certain improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation require reversal is unpreserved for appellate review as he either did not object to the remarks, his objection was sustained without a request for a curative instruction, or his objection was sustained and, upon the court’s issuance of a curative instruction, he did not request a further instruction or request a mistrial *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *757
      *People v Heide,*84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; *People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]; *People v Persaud,*237 AD2d 538 [1997]). We decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.