alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ivan Armando GARCIA-ESTRADA, also known as Ivan Armando Estrada Garcia, also known as Ivan Armando Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20700

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

*418PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ivan Armando Garcia-Estrada has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Garcia-Estrada has 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 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.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# Report USCIS Employee Misconduct

We expect our employees and contractors to uphold high ethical standards while delivering service to you.

Our number one priority is to perform our duties with a deep commitment to maintaining the trust that you have placed in us to administer the nation’s immigration laws fairly, honestly, and accurately.

Anyone with knowledge or suspicion of criminal violations, misconduct, wasteful activities, or allegations of civil rights or civil liberties abuse by USCIS employees or contractors should report specific information to the USCIS Office of Investigations (OI), the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General (DHS OIG), or the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), as appropriate. Information you should submit includes:
                - Date, time, and location of the incident;
                - Specific nature of the alleged incident; and
                - Name(s) of employee(s) involved.

USCIS does not tolerate discriminatory treatment of any person. USCIS policy prohibits discrimination by any USCIS employeeor contractor towards any benefit requestor, other USCIS employee or contractor, or anyone else USCIS employees or contractors interact with through their work for USCIS. For more information on USCIS’ anti-discrimination policy, see the USCIS Policy Manual.

Benefit requestors and other interested parties should report allegations of discrimination promptly to a USCIS supervisor or to DHS CRCL. You may also report such allegations, including those involving physical assault, to USCIS OI or DHS OIG.

USCIS employees also have a duty to report allegations of misconduct by federal employees and contractors promptly to a USCIS supervisor, USCIS OI, DHS OIG, or DHS CRCL as appropriate.

Reporting an Incident:

03/15/2024

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eugene M. Polin, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge that two of the People’s witnesses were accomplices and that their testimony must be corroborated. Because defendant neither requested such a charge, nor objected to the charge as given, this issue has not been preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05; *People v Corrigan,*139 AD2d 918, 919, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 917). Additionally, we find no merit to defendant’s contention that these witnesses were accomplices because no evidence was introduced that they participated in the preparation or perpetration of the crime, or that they counseled, induced or encouraged the crime *(see, People v Lyon,*134 AD2d 909, *Iv denied*71 NY2d 970; *People v Torello,*94 AD2d 857). The fact that these witnesses may have aided defendant in concealing or disposing of evidence of the crime does not make them accomplices *(see, People v Cobos,*57 NY2d 798, 801; *People v Corrigan, supra; People v Vataj,*121 AD2d 756, 757, *revd on other grounds*69 NY2d 985).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — robbery, first degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT (21)

                                     SUBSIDIARIES

The following schedule lists the Company and its subsidiaries, all of which 
are directly or indirectly wholly owned, their respective states of 
incorporation, and by indentation the immediate parent of each listed 
subsidiary, on March 20, 1998.  The schedule includes all subsidiaries except 
those that, if considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not 
constitute a significant subsidiary.

                                                          PLACE OF
          NAME                                          INCORPORATION
          ----                                          --------------

BRC Holdings, Inc.                                        Delaware
   BRC Technology Services, Inc.                          Delaware
   BRC Healthcare, Inc.                                   Oregon
     Latron Holdings, Inc.                                Oregon
        Latron Computer Systems, Inc.                     New Jersey
   Business Records Corporation                           Delaware
   Coding Systems, Inc.                                   Texas
   Clinical Resource Systems, Inc.                        Texas
   Cronus/ESL, Inc.                                       Delaware
   Dash Data Processing Corporation                       Texas  
   Logan Services, Inc.                                   Delaware
   The Pace Group, Inc.                                   Texas
     Pace Acquisition II, Inc.                            Texas
     The Pace Group Services, Inc.                        Texas
EXHIBIT 23

              INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE AND CONSENT



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Syncor International Corporation


The audits referred to in our report dated February 25, 1998 included the
related financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1997, included in the registration statement of
Syncor International Corporation.  This financial statement schedule is the
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits.  In our
opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the
basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in
all material respects the information set forth therein.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-44345) on Form S-3 and the registration statements (Nos. 33-7325, 33-39251,
33-43692, 33-57762, 33-52607, 333-18373, 333-18375, 333-18377, 333-39999 and
333-40117) on Form S-8 of Syncor International Corporation of our report dated
February 25, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Syncor
International Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996
and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and
cash flows and related schedule for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual
report on Form 10-K of Syncor International Corporation


                         /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP
                         ___________________________
                         KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP


Los Angeles, California
March 31, 1998
ELECTRONIC RECORD

03<W5

OHO-IS

COA # 14-13-00149-CR

STYLE: Larrlyon Deshun Williams v The State of Texas

COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed

DATE: November 25, 2014 Publish: Yes

OFFENSE: Attempted Capital Murder

COUNTY: Fort Bend

,th TRIAL COURT: 2401" District Court

TC CASE #:10-DCR-054995A

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Larrlyon Deshun Williams v The State of Texas

CCA#

APPEJ./-AA/f*<- Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE:

JUDGE f,Jy U*sU*~^'

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:.

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
**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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GameTech International,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Donald Tateishi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and





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




/S/
              Donald TateishiDonald TateishiChief Financial OfficerSeptember 14, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  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 on Form 10-K of Broadwind Energy, Inc. (the "Company") for the year
ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephanie K. Kushner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



March 12,
2010

/s/ STEPHANIE K. KUSHNER Stephanie K. Kushner Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original 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.

---



QuickLinks
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,549-02

EX PARTE BENITO HINOJOSA, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. B-16-2120-0-CR-B-2 IN THE 156TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM BEE COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant pleaded not guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child under 6 years and was

sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.

Hinojosa v. State, No. 13-18-00601-CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg, Feb. 6, 2020). 

Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the

district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel

failed to advise him about the State’s plea offers. Applicant acknowledges that defense counsel

conveyed plea offers for 25 years, 10 years, and 5 years, but he avers that counsel did not discuss the

strengths and weaknesses of the case and did not adequately advise Applicant as to whether he
2

should plead guilty or go to trial. Instead, trial counsel merely assured Applicant that the State did

not have a “winnable case.” Therefore, Applicant rejected the State’s plea offers and went to trial.

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S.

52 (1985); Ex parte Argent, 393 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Accordingly, the record

should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. TEX.CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. 

In developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). If the

trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is

indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him

at the hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. If counsel is appointed or retained, the trial

court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whethertrial counsel’s

performance was deficient and Applicant would have insisted on a trial but for counsel’s alleged

deficient performance. The trial court may make any other findings and conclusions that it deems

appropriate in response to Applicant’s claim.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP. P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.
3

Filed: December 14, 2022

Do not publish
August 24, 2011



Peter B. Lilly

4501 Gulf Shore Boulevard North

Aria 1203

Naples, FL 34103



Dear Peter,



We are pleased to offer you a position as a member of our Board
of Directors to serve as a director of Colombia Clean Power & Fuels, Inc. (CCPF). We propose the following terms:



Cash compensation: You will receive annual
cash compensation of $18,000 paid monthly ($1,500), with payments commencing September, 2011.



Stock options: You will be awarded initially
five-year options to purchase up to 50,000 shares of CCPF common stock with a strike price of $2.50 per share granted under CCPF’s
Equity Incentive Plan. The options will vest as follows: 25% immediately with 25% per year vesting over three (3) years. Ongoing
compensation and a stock option plan for the Board of Directors is expected to be developed by the end of the current calendar
year.



Board duties: Attend all regularly scheduled
and special meetings of the Board of Directors. Conduct special projects as determined. Serve on specified committees as determined.
Develop positive relationships with other board members and company operating personnel. Prepare for each Board meeting by carefully
studying the agenda and supporting materials.



Special committees and task assignments:
You will receive additional cash compensation of $30,000 per year paid monthly ($2,500) for added tasks as a director. Some of
the tasks may include developing strategic relationships, assisting the finance committee, and service on one or more of the Board
committees.



Time commitment: You will be expected to
attend five (5) in-person Board meetings per year and make yourself available for occasional teleconferences, as needed. It is
anticipated with your normal Board duties plus special committee and task assignments, CCPF will require approximately 20% of your
time.







Colombia Clean Power & Fuels, Inc

245 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard

San Anselmo, CA 94930

+1 415 460 1165















Expenses/Travel: You will receive reimbursement
for expenses and travel related to your service as a director. All air travel will be business class, when available.



Board Policies: You will be expected to
adhere to the policies and procedures governing Board members as currently in place or as adopted in the future.



Please indicate your acceptance of the above proposal and your willingness
to service as a director of CCPF by signing below and returning this letter to me. Please call me with any questions.



Sincerely,



|                             |  |  | 
|---------------------------- |  |  | 
|/s/ Barry G. Markowitz       |  |  | 
|Barry G. Markowitz, Chairman |  |  | 







Accepted and agreed upon this 24th day of August, 2011





|                   |  |  | 
|------------------ |  |  | 
|/s/ Peter B. Lilly |  |  | 
|Peter B. Lilly     |  |  | 







Colombia Clean Power & Fuels
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 97-1057

LAVEINA C. DAVIS, APPELLANT,

V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before HOLDAWAY, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.

O R D E R

In a panel opinion dated November 19, 1999, Davis v. West, 13 Vet.App. 178 (1999),

the Court affirmed the March 1997 and April 1998 decisions of the Board of Veterans' Appeals

(Board) which denied the appellant's claim for service connection of the veteran's death from

cardiorespiratory failure due to lung cancer and gastrointestinal bleeding; and denied service

connection for of the veterans' cause of death due to cigarette smoking. The Court held that

the cigarette smoking claim was not well grounded under 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a) as it then existed.

The appellant subsequently appealed, through counsel, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). 

In an order dated October 17, 2000, the Federal Circuit vacated this Court's opinion in

this case and remanded the appeal on the basis of Schroeder v. West, 212 F.3d 1265 (Fed. Cir.

2000) (once a veteran has properly made out a well-grounded claim for a current disability as

a result of a specific in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, the agency's duty

to assist attaches to the investigation of all in-service causes of that current disability). 

Subsequent to the Federal Circuit remand, on November 9, 2000, the Veterans Claims

Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000) (VCAA), was enacted. The

VCAA, inter alia, amended 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (a) to eliminate the well-grounded-claim

requirement. VCAA, § 4, 114 Stat. at 2098-99 (to be codified at 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (a)); see

Luyster v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 186 (2000) (per curiam order). Pursuant to section 7 (a)(2) of the

VCAA, the amendment to 38 U.S.C. § 5107 is applicable to "any claim. . . filed before the date

of the enactment of [the VCAA] and not final as of that date." Therefore, a remand for

readjudication in light of the enactment of the VCAA is required, as well as a remand on the

basis of Schroeder, supra, as provided for in the Federal Circuit's opinion. 

On remand, the appellant is free to submit additional evidence and argument necessary

to the resolution of his claims. See Kutcherousky v. West, 12 Vet.App. 369, 372-73 (1999) (per

curiam order). The Board shall proceed expeditiously. See Veterans' Benefits Improvements

Act, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994) (found at 38 U.S.C. § 5101
2

note) (requiring Secretary to provide for "expeditious treatment" of claims remanded by Board

or Court); Drosky v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 251, 257 (1997). 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that the March 1997 and April 1998 decisions of the Board are VACATED

and the matters are REMANDED to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this

order and the opinion of the Federal Circuit.

DATED: August 29, 2001 PER CURIAM.
Exhibit 4.1
**Summary translation of the Sponsorship agreement, dated January 17, 2005 andas supplemented on May 26, 2005, among Makita Corporation, JoyamaKaihatsu Ltd., and Tokyo Tatemono Co., Ltd., relating to the civil rehabilitation of JoyamaKaihatsu Ltd and the operation of Castle Hill Country Club.**
Makita Corporation entered into an agreement with Joyama Kaihatsu Ltd. and Tokyo Tatemono,Ltd. The purpose of the agreement was for Tokyo Tatemono Co., Ltd to support the rehabilitation ofJoyama Kaihatsu Ltd., enabling it to:
 a. maintain and reorganize Castle Hill Country Club;  b. secure the membership rights of its members;  c. secure employment for the employees of Joyama Kaihatsu Ltd.;  d. achieve settlement of creditors’ claims as soon as possible; and  e. expedite the completion of the civil rehabilitation process.
As part of the agreement, Joyama Kaihatsu Ltd., will guarantee the membership rights of its membersand maintain the existing membership system and standards of treatment for its members for theforeseeable future.
The agreement sets Joyama Kaihatsu Ltd.’s debt obligation at 50%, which Joyama Kaihatsu Ltd .willsatisfy primarily through gifts from Makita Corporation on the date of performance. Makita Corporation and its affiliated companieswill waive all claims against Joyama Kaihatsu Ltd., and will not redeem the amount owed by them.In addition, all Joyama Kaihatsu Ltd. shares owned by Makita Corporation will be extinguished withoutconsideration.
Joyama Kaihatsu Ltd., pursuant to its board of directors’ resolution, will be increasing capital byissuing shares to third parties, as below, with Tokyo Tatemono serving as the underwriter.   Class of shares being issued Common SharesThe number of shares being issued 1,000 sharesIssuing Price JPY 10,000 per share
Joyama Kaihatsu Ltd., will also enter into negotiations with lease holders for a 50% deduction.
Tokyo Tatemono Co., Ltd. will guarantee, for the foreseeable future, continued employment atJoyama Kaihatsu Ltd., or re-employment at Tokyo Tatemono Co., Ltd’s group companies with comparableterms of employment, to all existing employees of Joyama Kaihatsu Ltd. that would like continuedemployment.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Johnson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered December 10, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the defendant’s contentions that the court abused its discretion in failing to grant adjournments prior to and during trial, and find them to be without merit *(see, People v Spears,*64 NY2d 698; *People v Africk,*107 AD2d 700). We have considered the defendant’s other contention and find it to be unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v West,*56 NY2d 662), and in any event, any error was harmless in view of the clearly overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0114

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL PRESSEL,

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 October 15, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 13 2021

09/13/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0114
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0001392

13-NOV-2015

09:26 AM