alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 20340 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CARLOS PENALOZA

- LOPEZ, also known as Carlos Penaloza , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CR

- 569

- 1

Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Carlos Penaloza

- Lopez 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). Penaloza

- Lopez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 16, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-20340 Document: 00512597951 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2014No. 13

- 20340

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-20340 Document: 00512597951 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
Exhibit 32.2

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

         In connection with the annual report of The Quantum Group, Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending October 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald
B. Cohen , Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and
in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended; 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 the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

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

Signed on February 11, 2005

/s/ DONALD B. COHEN
-------------------
DONALD B. COHEN
Chief Financial Officer of The Quantum Group, Inc.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

215 

CA 12-01857 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

TONYA TIEDE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FRONTIER SKYDIVERS, INC., HOLLANDS INTERNATIONAL 

FIELD AIRPORT, AL HOLLANDS, DAYSTAR TRADING & 

VENTURES, LLC, PAUL GATH, 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS, 

ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

DIXON & HAMILTON, LLP, GETZVILLE (MICHAEL B. DIXON OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS FRONTIER SKYDIVERS, INC. AND PAUL

GATH. 

STEPHENS & STEPHENS, LLP, BUFFALO (R. WILLIAM STEPHENS OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS HOLLANDS INTERNATIONAL FIELD

AIRPORT AND AL HOLLANDS. 

JAECKLE FLEISCHMANN & MUGEL, LLP, BUFFALO (BRADLEY A. HOPPE OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT DAYSTAR TRADING &

VENTURES, LLC.

FEROLETO LAW, BUFFALO (PAUL B. BECKER OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeals and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie

County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered January 5, 2012. The order

dismissed plaintiff’s cause of action for gross negligence and

otherwise denied the motions of defendants to dismiss the amended

complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeals and cross appeal are

unanimously dismissed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Tiede v Frontier Skydivers, Inc. ([appeal

No. 2] ___ AD3d ___ [Apr. 26, 2013]). 

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### Sergio Vargas CANO and Maria Del Pilar Vargas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-71138.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2011.*

Filed April 26, 2011.

Fabian C. Serrato, Serrato Law Firm, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners.

Gerald Alexander, Trial, Kerry Ann Monaco, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sergio Vargas Cano and Maria Del Pilar Vargas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion *787the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo ineffective assistance of counsel claims, *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than three years after the BIA’s final order of removal, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final order of removal), and petitioners did not show they were entitled to equitable tolling, *see Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA erred by failing to address their statutory right to counsel claim is unavailing because the BIA denied the motion on timeliness grounds.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Estelle Bindler, Respondent, v John Brown, Defendant, Country Wide Insurance Company, Appellant, and Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., Respondent.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Country Wide Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated August 26, 1986, which, *inter alia,*declared that it was the insurer of the defendant John Brown on November 26, 1980.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

As its sole contention in support of reversal, the defendant Country Wide Insurance Company argues that its cancellation notice, which failed to set forth the full address of its insured, was nevertheless sufficient to terminate coverage since the incomplete address utilized was supplied by the insured him*603self in his application *(see,*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [1] [a]). However, at the hearing conducted in respect to the propriety of the cancellation notice, Country Wide Insurance Company did not submit the policy or the insured’s application in support of this contention. After hearing counsel’s arguments, the court ruled that the cancellation notice was defective.

In compiling its record on appeal, Country Wide Insurance Company has nevertheless inserted therein the declarations page of the insurance policy — a company produced document —on which the incomplete address had been typed. Neither this document, nor the insured’s application, from which Country Wide Insurance Company contends the address was transcribed, was submitted to the hearing court. The defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation contends, *inter alia,*that the inclusion of the declarations page in the record on appeal was improper. We agree.

As this court has recently observed, " '[i]t is axiomatic that appellate review is limited to the record made at nisi prius and, absent matters which may be judicially noticed, new facts may not be injected at the appellate level’ ” *(Mi Suk Buley v Beacon Tex-Print,*118 AD2d 630, 631, quoting from *Broida v Bancroft,*103 AD2d 88, 93). Since the declarations page upon which Country Wide Insurance Company relies was not submitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, it may not be considered on appeal. Accordingly, the contention that the notice of cancellation was effective because it was mailed to an address supplied by the insured himself is dependent upon matters dehors the record which cannot be considered by this court *(see, Interfaith Med. Center v Shahzad,*124 AD2d 557, 559; *Porter v Shapiro,*124 AD2d 794, 795). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
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 The Quantum Group, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended October 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Noel J. Guillama, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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, as amended; 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 the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.





Signed on February 13, 2008



/s/Noel J. Guillama

Noel J. Guillama

Chief Executive Officer of The Quantum Group, Inc.
Exhibit 32.1

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

This certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Investors Capital Holdings, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Theodore E. Charles, Chairman and Chief Executive 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 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.

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 the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.


Date:  November 11, 2004                    By: /s/ Theodore E. Charles
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Theodore E. Charles
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

                                       25
EXHIBIT 11


                        FRED MEYER, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)
                                   (Unaudited)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        12 Weeks Ended                 40 Weeks Ended
                                                   -----------------------        -----------------------
                                                   Nov. 8,         Nov. 9,        Nov. 8,         Nov. 9,
                                                     1997            1996           1997            1996
                                                   ------          ------         ------          ------
<S>                                              <C>              <C>          <C>                <C>   
Weighted average number of
  shares outstanding............................   78,517          50,770        60,805            52,628

Weighted average number of
  shares under option...........................   10,471           8,838         7,173             8,160

Shares assumed to have been
  purchased under the
  treasury stock method.........................   (5,652)         (4,222)       (3,861)           (4,118)
                                                 --------         -------      --------           -------

Weighted average number of
  common and common equivalent
  shares outstanding............................   83,336          55,386        64,117            56,670
                                                 ========         =======      ========           =======

Net income (loss) .............................. $(72,933)        $ 6,292      $(40,554)          $30,909
                                                 ========         =======      ========           =======

Earnings (loss) per common share................ $   (.88)        $   .11      $   (.63)          $   .55
                                                 ========         =======      ========           =======
</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.10

    LEASE MODIFICATION
AGREEMENT

    


    THIS
AGREEMENT made and entered into this 14th day of December 2009 by and between
The Mock Family Living
Trust, The Mock
Building, LLC, and Theodore H. Mock hereinafter called Lessor and Global
Trek Xploration hereinafter called Lessee;

    


    WITNESSETH

    


    WHEREAS
Lessor (formerly The Mock Family Limited Partnership) and Lessee entered into a
lease dated June 3, 2008 for a period of Two years commencing June 10, 2008 and
terminating on June 9, 2010 for the premises located in the City of Palo Alto,
County of Santa Clara, State of California, and more particularly described as
follows: Suite Numbers 11-16, located at 366 California Avenue, Palo Alto,
California consisting of approximately 1,100 rentable square feet;

    


    WHEREAS
the parties modified said lease with the removal of Suites 11 & 12 from said
lease commencing on November 14, 2009.

    


    WHEREAS
it is the desire of the parties hereto to modify said lease with the removal of
Suites 15 & 16 from said lease commencing on January 1, 2010.

    


    NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises, it is hereby understood and
agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:

    
      
        
          	
                	
                  1.

                	
                  That
      the Lessee will continue to occupy Suites # 13 -14 commencing on
      January
      1, 2010 and terminating on June 9,
2010.

                


        

      

    

    
      
        
          	
                	
                  2.

                	
                  Commencing
      January 1, 2010, the monthly rent for the remaining Suites #13
      & #14 shall be One Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty dollars
      ($1,420.00).

                


        

      

    

    
      
        	
              	
                3.

              	
                That
      all other terms and provisions of that lease dated June 3, 2008, are
      hereby made applicable to the period covered by this
      modification.

              


      

    

    


    That
this Lease Modification Agreement is not valid until signed by all parties
involved.

    


    
      	
              Lessor:

            	
              The Mock Family Living
      Trust,

            	 
      	
              Lessee:
      Global Trek
      Exploration

            
	 
      	
              The
      Mock Building, LLC, and

            	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
              Theodore
      H. Mock

            	 
      	 
      


    

    


    
      
        
          
            	 
      	 
      	
                     

                  
	
                    Anne
      K. Wilbur, Its Agent

                  	
                    Date

                  	 
      	
                    Murray
      Williams, Chief Financial Officer

                  	
                    Date
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 24

- 00137

- CV
Erica Renee RENDON , Appellant

v.
CHAVEZ REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC , Appellee
From the County Court a t Law No. 10 , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024CV00613 Honorable Cesar Garcia , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 17, 2024
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

A ppellant’s brief was due to be filed by April 4 , 2024. On May 1, 2024, this court sent a letter notifying appellant that no brief had been filed and requesting a response by May 11, 2024. No brief or response was filed. On June 3 , 2024, we ordered a ppellant to file, no later than June
13 , 2024 , h er brief and a written response reasonably exp laining: (1) h er failure to timely file a brief, and (2) why appellee is not significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. Our order cautioned appellant that if s he failed to timely file a brief and the written response by
June 13 , w e would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a); see04

- 24

- 00137

- CV

- 2

- also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if appellant fails to comply with court order). Appellant did not file a timely response to our June 3rd order. We dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.
PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C.  SECTION 1350**

 

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the public Company Accounting Reform and Investor ProtectionAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), Ronald Cooper, the chiefexecutive officer of ImproveNet, Inc., certifies that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

(i)                                     theQuarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002(the “Report”), to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1, fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end ofthe period covered by the Report.

 

 
| By:    | /s/    | Ronald B. Cooper |
|--------|--------|------------------|
|   |   | Ronald B. Cooper |
|   |   |             |
|   |   | August 20, 2002  |

 

 

----

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C.  SECTION 1350**

 

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the public Company Accounting Reform and Investor ProtectionAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), Christopher Kendall, thechief accounting officer of ImproveNet, Inc., certifies that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

(iii)                               theQuarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002(the “Report”), to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1, fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(iv)                              theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end ofthe period covered by the Report.

 

 
| By:    | /s/    | Christopher A. Kendall |
|--------|--------|------------------------|
|   |   | Christopher A. Kendall |
|   |   |                   |
|   |   | August 20, 2002        |

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,461
<SECURITIES>                                    31,517
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,392
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           8,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,208
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 222,912
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,684
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           104
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   226,912
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,170
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (518)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,820
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,293
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,998
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,295
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,295
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58


</TABLE>