alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00352-CV

In re Jorge Q. Guillen

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Jorge Q. Guillen has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex.

Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. Based on this record, we deny the petition. See

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8; see also Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1992) (relator has

burden of providing court with sufficient record to establish right to mandamus relief); Tex. R. App.

P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is

material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

Filed: June 2, 2016
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10475

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEVIN RIEDLE

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-76-ALL

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kevin Riedle has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Riedle has filed a response. The record is

insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Riedle’s claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on

direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no

opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.”

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 1, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10475

2

United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006)(internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s

brief, and Riedle’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, the 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,419,304
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               35,850,373
<ALLOWANCES>                                (7,397,809)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,421,038
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,436,917
<PP&E>                                      29,538,503
<DEPRECIATION>                              (3,605,388)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             193,414,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       37,469,184
<BONDS>                                    170,282,605
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         59
<COMMON>                                           162
<OTHER-SE>                                 (15,513,690)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               193,414,778
<SALES>                                     49,224,614
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            49,224,614
<CGS>                                       49,813,938
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               49,813,938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (146,555)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,720,088
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,162,857)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   212,688
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (5,375,545)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,375,545)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leonard Baldwin, Also Known as Richard Taylor, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 578]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), dated April 29, 2010, which denied his motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 on his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon his plea of guilty, on May 9, 2002.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46. On May 9, 2002, the defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender, and he has an extensive, continuous criminal history in New York dating from 1995. With regard to the instant conviction, the defendant violated the provisions of his plea agreement in 2002 when he failed to enter into and remain in a residential drug treatment program. Accordingly, under the terms of the agreement, he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 472 to 9 years of imprisonment. According to the record before this Court, during the course of his incarceration, the defendant received disciplinary tickets for 27 tier III infractions and 23 tier II infractions, including tickets for, among other things, violent conduct, fighting, threats, use of drugs, possession of contraband, and smuggling. Under these circumstances, substantial justice dictated that the defendant’s motion be denied *(see People v Karim,*85 AD3d 943, 944 [2011]; *People v Avila,*84 AD3d 1259, 1259-1260 [2011]; *People v Wit*
      *773
      *kowski,*82 AD3d 913, 913 [2011]; *People v Pipkin,*77 AD3d 770, 770-771 [2010]; *People v Winfield,*59 AD3d 747, 747-748 [2009]). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Nat'l Clonal Germplasm Rep - Tree Fruit & Nut Crops & Grapes: Davis, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Orders & ServicesSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Davis, California Nat'l Clonal Germplasm Rep - Tree Fruit & Nut Crops & Grapes Docs





- National Arid Land Plant Genetic Repository - Parlier, CA

National Arid Land Plant Genetic*************** Repository - Parlier, CAheadline bar


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Barney A. Richmond, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge, the Annual Report of eCom eCom.com, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2009, (i) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) that the information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of eCom
eCom.com, Inc.



|                         |  |                              
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Date:
September 10, 2010 |  | /S/    BARNEY
A.
RICHMOND    
|                         |  | Barney A. Richmond           
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                         |  | (Principal Executive Officer)

I, Richard C. Turner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge, the Annual Report of eCom eCom.com, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended
May 31, 2009, (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) that the information
contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of eCom eCom.com, Inc.



|                         |  |                              
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Date:
September 10, 2010 |  | /S/    RICHARD
C.
TURNER     
|                         |  | Richard C. Turner            
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                         |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32

                            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 American Soil Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2012 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carl P. Ranno, Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.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.


Carl P. Ranno,
-----------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer, President,
and Chief Financial Officer
February 14, 2013
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00890

- CR
Peter BURTON , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas , Appellee From the 290th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 1990CR0764A Honorable Melisa Skinner , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 15, 2012
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Appellant fi led a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the trial court’s order denying his motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc. The denial of a motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc is not an appealable order. See Caceras v. State , No. 04

- 10

- 00132

- CR, 2010 WL 726884, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Mar. 3, 2010, no pet.) (not designated for publication); Castor v. State , 205 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2006, no pet.). The proper remedy to obtain review of the04

- 11

- 00890

- CR

- 2

- denial of a motion f or judgment nunc pro tunc is by petition for writ of mandamus. Caceras , 2010 WL 726884, at *1; Castor , 205 S.W.3d at 667. On January 24, 2012, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing by February 7, 2012, why th i s appeal should not be dismissed fo r lack of jurisdiction. On February 6, 2012, appellant filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file his petition for writ of mandamus. Appellant appears to have misunderstood this court’s prior order. Appellant was ordered to show cause why th is appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the filing of a petition for writ of mandamus is the proper way to obtain review of the denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. The appellate rules governing the filing of a mandamu s proceeding do not contain a specific deadline. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to appellant’s filing of a petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief from the trial court’s denia l of his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 41854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16508]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Initial Review Group; Clinical, Treatment and Health 
Services Research Study Section.
    Date: October 13, 2021.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on 
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 
20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Luis Espinoza, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol 
Abuse and Alcoholism, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 2109, Bethesda, MD 
20817, (301) 443-8599, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#670214170e09081d060b06270a060e0b49090e0f49000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4d1c7c4dddadbced5d8d5f4d9d5ddd89adadddc9ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical 
Research and Research Support Awards, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS)

    Dated: July 29, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-16508 Filed 8-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ALAN ORTIZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 702 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12th day of March, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0024

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SLADE ALLEN CLAWSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 26, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 6 2023

04/06/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0024
Order entered December 23, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00651-CV

ANDREW WHITE AND CHELSEA BALESTRA, Appellants

V.

NHI-REIT OF AXEL, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 95th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-07841

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ counsel’s December 18, 2019 motion to withdraw. We 

GRANT the motion and DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to remove the law firm of Reed Smith, 

LLP and its attorneys as counsel for appellants. All future communications with appellants 

should be directed to

Andrew White

1113 Lake Whitney Drive

Wylie, Texas 75098

(917) 825-1308

and

Chelsea Balestra

2425 Victory Ave.

Dallas, Texas 75219

(972) 754-3009.
We note that in the motion to withdraw, counsel informs us that White has filed for 

bankruptcy. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.2, further action in this cause is 

automatically suspended. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. Accordingly, for administrative purposes, this 

cause is ABATED and treated as a closed case. It may be reinstated on motion by any party 

showing, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 8.3, that the appeal is permitted by 

federal law or the bankruptcy court. See id. 8.3. 

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         412,012
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,349,224
<ALLOWANCES>                                   560,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,127,265
<PP&E>                                         203,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                 147,118
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,552,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,486,170
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,388
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,552,911
<SALES>                                     23,137,194
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,137,194
<CGS>                                       16,194,249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,194,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,983,654
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               304,200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             333,293
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,678,202)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (560,412)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,117,790)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (1,025,331)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                540,840
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,602,281
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.93)
        

</TABLE>
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

     The  undersigned  hereby  certifies,  in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his
capacity  as  an  officer  of  SpaceDev,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  that,  to his
knowledge,  the  Quarterly  Report  of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended  September 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or  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 the Company as of the dates and
for  the  periods presented in the financial statements included in such report.

Dated:  November  14,  2005


                                   By:  /s/  James  W.  Benson
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        James  W.  Benson
                                        Chief  Executive  Officer
The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the Southern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1471

___________

Henry M. Zeidan, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Lawrence Jacobson, Dr., or the Current * Southern District of Iowa. 

Dean of School of Osteopathic *

Medicine and Health Sciences, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: July 6, 1998

 Filed: July 13, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Henry M. Zeidan appeals from the district court&s adverse grant of summary

1

judgment in this diversity action. Zeidan claimed defendants wrongfully retained

student loan money and denied him the opportunity to continue his medical education.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties& briefs, we conclude the district
-2-

court&s judgment was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Zeidan&s

motions for a jury hearing and a preliminary hearing are denied. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.