alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Internet America, Inc., on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-70461, 333-72109, 333-72111,
333-77153, 333-80277, 355-80285, and 333-92295) of our report dated August 31,
2001, except as to the second, third and fourth paragraphs of Note 12 which is
September 18, 2001, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Internet
America, Inc., for the year ended June 30, 2001.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
September 28, 2001
#### ELVIS E. ENDICOTT, Appellant, *v.*THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION *et al.*(Roscoe Emmerson Whitmer, Appellee).

Second District (Industrial Commission Division)

No. 2 — 84—0121 WC

Opinion filed April 13, 1984.

William D. Knight, Jr., of Knight & Knight, of Rockford, for appellant.

R. Eugene Beckman, of Sycamore, for appellees.

JUSTICE BARRY

delivered the opinion of the court:

Roseoe Emmerson Whitmer filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (now Workers’ Compensation Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 48, par. 138.1 *et seq.)*for injuries allegedly sustained during and arising out of his employment with Elvis E. Endicott, d/b/a Jim Endicott, d/b/a/ DeKalb Standard Service. Whitmer alleged that he sustained a ruptured spinal disc on June 28, 1976. The arbitrator awarded Whitmer compensation for temporary total disability, medical expenses and permanent partial disability. The Industrial Commission adopted and affirmed the arbitrator’s decision. The circuit court of DeKalb County confirmed the decision of the Commission. On appeal, the employer asserts that the Commission’s decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

Specifically, the employer asserts that Whitmer’s testimony regarding the sustaining of the injury was not credible and was uncorroborated. A review of the record on appeal demonstrates that the employer failed to present any credible evidence, and that the decision of the Commission is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. See *Scott v. Industrial Com.*(1979), 76 Ill. 2d 171, 390 N.E.2d 90.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of DeKalb County is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 1 of 36 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 2 of 36 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 3 of 36 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 4 of 36 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 5 of 36 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 6 of 36 PageID #:6
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 7 of 36 PageID #:7
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 8 of 36 PageID #:8
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 9 of 36 PageID #:9
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 10 of 36 PageID #:10
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 11 of 36 PageID #:11
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 12 of 36 PageID #:12
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 13 of 36 PageID #:13
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 14 of 36 PageID #:14
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 15 of 36 PageID #:15
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 16 of 36 PageID #:16
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 17 of 36 PageID #:17
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 18 of 36 PageID #:18
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 19 of 36 PageID #:19
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 20 of 36 PageID #:20
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 21 of 36 PageID #:21
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 22 of 36 PageID #:22
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 23 of 36 PageID #:23
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 24 of 36 PageID #:24
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 25 of 36 PageID #:25
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 26 of 36 PageID #:26
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 27 of 36 PageID #:27
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 28 of 36 PageID #:28
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 29 of 36 PageID #:29
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 30 of 36 PageID #:30
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 31 of 36 PageID #:31
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 32 of 36 PageID #:32
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 33 of 36 PageID #:33
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 34 of 36 PageID #:34
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 35 of 36 PageID #:35
Case: 1:02-cv-07984 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/05/02 Page 36 of 36 PageID #:36
#### Jennifer Taylor et al., Appellant, v Fakhrun Nessa Haque, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 560]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated September 21, 2010, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant as contrary to the weight of the evidence or in the interest of justice and for a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the *979verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see *Grassi v Ulrich,*87 NY2d 954, 956 [1996]; *Lolik v Big V Supermarkets,*86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; *Jean-Louis v City of New York,*86 AD3d 628, 628 [2011]). The jury’s resolution of conflicting expert testimony is entitled to great weight, as it is the jury that had the opportunity to observe and hear the experts (see *Saccone v Gross,*84 AD3d 1208, 1208-1209 [2011]; *Ferreira v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr.,*81 AD3d 587, 588 [2011]). Where, as here, conflicting expert testimony is presented, the jury is entitled to accept one expert’s opinion and reject that of another expert (see *Lolly v Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr.,*90 AD3d 862 [2011]; *Ferreira v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr.,*81 AD3d at 588).

Here, the jury was entitled to accept the opinion of the defendant’s medical expert that the defendant did not depart from good and accepted medical practice in not referring the plaintiffs decedent to a cardiologist for a stress test prior to elective knee surgery, and there is no basis to disturb its determination. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not err in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the defendant as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, are without merit, or do not warrant reversal. Rivera, J.E, Chambers, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION**

 

|   | Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I hereby certify that: |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K; |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|

 

to the best of my knowledge, this Annual Report on Form 10-K (i) fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d); and (ii) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Tengasco, Inc. and its subsidiaries during the period covered by this Report.

 

Dated: March 27, 2007

 

|   | s/Jeffrey R. Bailey    |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | Jeffrey R. Bailey, |
|--------|--------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
#### V. James Zappolo et al., Appellants, v Putnam Hospital Center, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

—In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Beisheim, J.), dated April 9, 1985, as denied that branch of its motion which was to strike the answer of defendant Putnam Hospital Center or, in the alternative, to compel compliance with their notice to take the oral deposition of that defendant and with certain prior orders of the same court concerning disclosure by it, with leave to plaintiffs to take the oral examination of any former medical personnel of that defendant.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Special Term properly denied the branch of plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike the answer of the defendant hospital or, alternatively, to direct the hospital to submit to a further examination before trial. It appears that the hospital has complied, to the extent possible, with plaintiffs’ notice and with the prior orders directing it to submit to an examination before trial. However, most of the medical personnel having personal knowledge of decedent’s case are no longer employed by the defendant hospital and it cannot be compelled to produce its former employees for an examination before trial *(see, Frankel v French & Polyclinic Med. School & Health Center, 70*AD2d 947). Thus, plaintiffs must proceed to examine such persons in the manner provided for nonparty witnesses (CPLR 3106 [a]).

Finally, plaintiffs’ claim that the order appealed from effectively overruled a prior order made by a court of coordinate jurisdiction is of no avail on this appeal, inasmuch as the doctrine of the " Taw of the case’ ” does not bind an appellate court *(Martin v City of Cohoes,*37 NY2d 162, 165; *Wilson v McCarthy,*53 AD2d 860). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7486

SABASTIAN HASKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-03-228-AM)

Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: September 20, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sabastian Haskins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*We note that this is Haskins’s second § 2254 petition, which

should have been dismissed as an unauthorized successive petition.

By order filed March 11, 2004, this appeal was placed in abeyance

for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision

in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no longer

find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sabastian Haskins seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000).* An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely

on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not

issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists

of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252

F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Haskins has not made the requisite showing. See

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). 

Finally, in accordance with United States v. Winestock,

340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003),

we construe Haskins’s notice of appeal and informal brief as a
- 3 -

motion for authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a

successive habeas corpus petition. To obtain permission to bring

a second or successive § 2254 petition, a movant must show that his

claim: (1) “relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,

that was previously unavailable” or (2) relies on newly discovered

facts that tend to establish the movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244. We conclude that Haskins has not satisfied either

standard.

Accordingly, we deny Haskins’s implicit application for

leave to file a successive § 2254 petition, deny Haskins’s motion

to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability,

and dismiss the appeal. 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
| Name               | Title                                                                                         |   | Base Salary |    |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------|---------|
| Mark J. Hawkins    | Former Senior Vice President, Finance and Information Technology, and Chief Financial Officer |   | $           | 460,000 |   |
| Junien Labrousse   | Executive Vice President, Products                                                            |   | $           | 680,000 |   |
| David Henry        | Senior Vice President, Customer Experience and Chief Marketing Officer                        |   | $           | 460,000 |   |
| L. Joseph Sullivan | Senior Vice President, Worldwide Operations                                                   |   | $           | 340,000 |   |

----
Case: 1:01-cv-05153 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/03/01 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cv-05153 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/03/01 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2
Case: 1:01-cv-05153 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/03/01 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: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.                  

###### Postal Service

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

86 FR 40882.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: 

Thursday, August 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.; and Friday, August 6, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING: 

The Postal Service will not hold a public comment period following the open session of this meeting. The Postal Service has decided to continue the suspension of public in-person attendance for the open session of this meeting due to the pandemic. Individuals may listen to the open session of the meeting through a livestream. Details for listening to the livestream are available on the Postal Service's website, *https://about.usps.com/​who/​leadership/​board-governors.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Michael J. Elston, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.

Michael J. Elston,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-16749 Filed 8-2-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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 eLinear, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB/A  (Third  Amendment)  for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jim
C.  Pyle,  Principal  Accounting 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.



/s/  Jim  C.  Pyle
-------------------------------------------
Jim  C.  Pyle
Principal  Accounting  Officer
September  7,  2004


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


<PAGE>
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 Quarterly Report of IBSG International, Inc; (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Michael Rivers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:





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





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







IBSG
                International, IncMay 11,
                    2007
            By:
            /s/ Michael
                RiversMichael
              RiversChief
                Executive Officer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ Consolidated Cases Nos. 02-60734, 02-60778, 02-60746, 02-60766, 02-60762, 02-60745, 02-60786, 02-60752, 02-60747, 02-60779,

02-60802 Summary Calendar

_______________________ Case No. 02-60734 BANK ONE NA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. MICHELLE JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________ Case No. 02-60778 BANK ONE NA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. GREGORY LEDELL THOMAS; PRINCELLA THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________ Case No. 02-60746 BANK ONE NA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. VELMA GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.2 _________________________ Case No. 02-60766 BANK ONE NA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. MACK ARTHUR PICKENS, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________ Case No. 02-60762 BANK ONE NA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. J. C. ROBERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________ Case No. 02-60745 BANK ONE NA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. MARILYN NAILER, A/K/A MARILYN NAILOR; BARRY NAILER, A/K/A BARRY NAILOR, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________ Case No. 02-60786 BANK ONE NA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS WRIGHT; ANNIE WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________ Case No. 02-60752 BANK ONE NA,3 Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOANN NEWSON, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________ Case No. 02-60747 BANK ONE NA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. GLORIA JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________ Case No. 02-60779 BANK ONE NA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. LOYD WALTON, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________________ _ Case No. 02-60802 BANK ONE NA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. CLARA BUTLER, A/K/A CLARA BULTER, Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

(3:01-CV-39)

_____________________________________________

February 25, 2003* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
1 288 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2002).
2 No. 01-60051 (5th Cir. April 5, 2002) (unpublished).
3 125 F. Supp. 2d 819 (S.D. Miss. 2001).
4 No. 4:01CV15-D-B (N.D. Miss. May 7, 2002) (order granting petition to compel arbitration). 4 Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Appellants challenge the district court’s rulings granting Bank One’s motions to compel arbitration and to stay the A ppellants’ pending state law claims. This case is indistinguishable from those that we reviewed and ruled on in the related cases of Bank One, N.A. v. Boyd 1 and Bank One, N.A. v. Lake
. 2 For essentially the same reasons that are set forth in our opinion in B oyd and in the district court’s opinion in Ba nk One, N.A. v. Coates , 3 and Bank One, N.A. v. Taylor , 4 the judgment of the district court in this case is, in all respects, AFFIRMED .
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 70 Filed: 05/19/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:417
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 70 Filed: 05/19/05 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:418
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 70 Filed: 05/19/05 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:419
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 70 Filed: 05/19/05 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:420
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 70 Filed: 05/19/05 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:421
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 70 Filed: 05/19/05 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:422
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-50939

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Hugo Quiroz-Lozano, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:17-CR-995-2

Before Smith, Stewart, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hugo QuirozLozano has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Quiroz-Lozano has not filed a response. We 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 9, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50939 Document: 00515932440 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2021
No. 19-50939

2

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.

Case: 19-50939 Document: 00515932440 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2021