alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-06-0079-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

NOVEMBER 28, 2006

______________________________

DEXTER DEUWN MITCHELL, 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 51,843-A; HON. H. BRYAN POFF, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Dexter Deuwn Mitchell (appellant) appeals his conviction for three counts of

aggravated robbery. Through a single issue, he contends that his sentence is invalid

because the trial court’s jury charge pertaining to the guilt-innocence phase of the

proceeding was neither certified or filed of record by the trial court nor given to the jury to

read during its deliberations. We overrule the issue and affirm the judgment. 
2

Within the supplemental clerk’s record received on October 17, 2006, we find a copy

of the jury charge at issue. The instrument was not only signed by the judge who presided

over the trial but also stamped “Filed . . . 2005 Mar -3 A 10:27 . . .” by the district court

clerk. So too do we see from the reporter’s record that the trial court not only afforded all

counsel opportunity to object to the contents of the written document but also read the

charge to the jury before closing arguments began. So, assuming arguendo that the

written instrument was not physically given to the jury for use while deliberating, the

supposed omission constituted no error. See Jones v. State, 220 S.W.2d 156, 161 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1949) (construing a statute worded similarly to art. 36.18 of the Texas Code of

Criminal Procedure and holding that the written charge need not be given the jury to

consider during deliberations as long as it was read to the jurors before they began

deliberating).

Having found appellant’s issue meritless, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Brian Quinn

 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
H. Res. 1069 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 9, 2010. 

Whereas breakthroughs in scientific research are the building 

blocks of a productive, competitive, and healthy society; 

Whereas the Nobel Prize is a prestigious international award 

administered annually by the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm, Sweden, and has since 1901 recognized the world’s 

most outstanding achievements in physics; 

Whereas, on December 10, 2009, in Stockholm, Sweden, Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith from Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey, were awarded the 

Nobel prize for physics for their invention of an imaging 

semiconductor circuit, the charge-coupled devise (CCD), 

in addition to Charles K. Kao from Standard Telecommunication Laboratories in Harlow, United Kingdom, 

and the Chinese University of Hong Kong in Hong Kong, 

China, for his work concerning the transmission of light 

in fibers for optical communication; 

Whereas Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey, is an 

internationally renowned research organization founded 

in 1925 by the American Telephone & Telegraph company (AT&T); 

Whereas a total of seven Nobel Prizes for physics have been 

awarded for work completed at Bell Laboratories; 
2 

•HRES 1069 EH 

Whereas work at Bell Laboratories has led to the invention 

or advancement of such groundbreaking technologies as 

the transistor, photovoltaic cells, the laser, the UNIX operating system, and the CCD sensor; 

Whereas scientific leadership in the United States is made 

possible by robust investments in scientific research programs in both the public and private sectors; 

Whereas continued support of science research programs is 

indispensable to maintaining the Nation’s position as the 

global leader in technology and innovation; and 

Whereas the accomplishments of these scientists are significant achievements in the field of scientific research and 

further promote the United States among the world leaders in science: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) congratulates Willard S. Boyle and George E. 

Smith for being awarded the Nobel Prize in physics; and 

(2) recognizes Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, 

New Jersey, as a contributor to leadership in scientific 

research and innovation in the United States. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1289

___________

Darrell Donta McKenzie, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Michelle Hill, Officer, Little Rock *

Police Department; Kevin Simpson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Detective, Little Rock Police *

Department; Plunkett, Officer, Little *

Rock Police Department; Ringgold, *

Officer, Little Rock Police Department, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 21, 2009

Filed: August 25, 2009

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
Darrell McKenzie appeals from the district court’s1

 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action following an evidentiary hearing. After reviewing the record, we find

no basis to reverse. See Johnson v. Bi-State Justice Ctr., 12 F.3d 133, 135-36 (8th Cir.

1993) (approving use of pretrial evidentiary hearing to determine whether pro se

inmate’s nonfrivolous § 1983 damages claim warrants jury trial; if both sides present

evidence at hearing, standard is whether evidence presents sufficient disagreement to

require jury submission or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as

matter of law). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the

Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas.

-2-
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 17, 2010

jam 

# Order

February 17, 2010

139966

CREAMUS PAXTON HOWARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139966

CoA: 293630

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Justice, plai ntiff-appellant having failed to pay the partial filing fee as required by the order of December 4, 2009, the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close this file.
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of HL Ventures Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Deniz Hassan,
Chief Executive 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
20th day of February, 2009.


/s/ Deniz Hassan
---------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John DOE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-1568-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 14, 2010.

Ronald B. Resetarits (Thomas G. Dennis on the brief), Federal Defender Office, New Haven, CT, for Appellant.

Edward Chang (Sandra S. Glover on the brief) for Nora R. Dannehy, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT, for Appellees.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, AMALYA L. KEARSE, GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Assuming *arguendo*that we can reach the appellant’s challenge to his sentence based on the government’s alleged breach notwithstanding his appellate waiver, the challenge is without merit. No plain error was committed below; it is by no means plain that the government’s recommendation of a sentencing range violated the provision of the plea agreement that arguably forbade it from requesting a specific sentence. *See Puckett v. United States,*- U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1428-33, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); *United States v. MacPherson,*590 F.3d 215, 218 (2d Cir.2009). The remaining challenges to the sentence do not overcome the appellant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal a sentence within the stipulated Guidelines range; these challenges are therefore waived. *See United States v. Haynes,*412 F.3d 37, 39 (2d Cir.2005).

Finding no merit in any of the appellant’s remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, John J. Sutherland, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Cyprium Resources Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| (1)    | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cyprium Resources Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2008 (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 Cyprium Resources Inc.                                                                      |

----
#### Kirk E. WEBSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert M. GATES, Secretary, United States Department of Defense, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Defendant—Appellee, and John Hild; Jerome Townsend; Keith Coddington, Defendants.

No. 09-2079.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 19, 2010.

Decided: May 5, 2010.

Kirk E. Webster, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

*284Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kirk E. Webster appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant in this action claiming violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (2006) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Webster v. Gates,*No. 8:07-cv-01107-RWT (D.Md. July 22, 2009). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
SUBMISSION COVER SHEET

IMPORTANT: Check box if Confidential Treatment is requested

Registered Entity Identifier Code (optional): ___________________________ 

Organization: ICE Swap Trade, LLC

 

Filing as a: DCM X SEF DCO SDR Please note - only ONE choice allowed.

 

Filing Date (mm/dd/yy): 10/24/2014 Filing Description: ICE Swap Trade, LLC is listing one (1) cashsettled Credit Contract and the corresponding contract definitions.

SPECIFY FILING TYPE Please note only ONE choice allowed per Submission.

 

Organization Rules and Rule Amendments

Certification § 40.6(a)

Approval § 40.5(a)

Notification § 40.6(d)

Advance Notice of SIDCO Rule Change § 40.10(a)

SIDCO Emergency Rule Change § 40.10(h)

 Rule Numbers: 

New Product Please note only ONE product per Submission.

Certification § 40.2(a) 

Certification Security Futures § 41.23(a)

Certification Swap Class § 40.2(d)

Approval § 40.3(a)

Approval Security Futures § 41.23(b)

Novel Derivative Product Notification § 40.12(a)

Swap Submission § 39.5

 Official Product Name: Markit® iTraxx® Crossover Index Tranche

 

Product Terms and Conditions (product related Rules and Rule Amendments)

Certification § 40.6(a) 

Certification Made Available to Trade Determination § 40.6(a)

Certification Security Futures § 41.24(a)

Delisting (No Open Interest) § 40.6(a) 

Approval § 40.5(a)

Approval Made Available to Trade Determination § 40.5(a)

Approval Security Futures § 41.24(c)

Approval Amendments to enumerated agricultural products § 40.4(a), § 40.5(a)

“Non-Material Agricultural Rule Change” § 40.4(b)(5)

Notification § 40.6(d)

 Official Name(s) of Product(s) Affected: 

Rule Numbers: 

X
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

SUBSIDIARIESOF RG GLOBAL LIFESTYLES, INC.

 

1.             AmerikalNutraceutical Corporation, a California corporation, which also does businessunder the fictitious business name of Nutrition USA.  This corporation operates as a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of R.G. Global Lifestyles, Inc.

 

2.             Aquair, Inc., a California corporation,operates as a wholly-owned subsidiary of R.G. Global Lifestyles, Inc.

 

3.             On Line Surgery, Inc., a California corporation, operates as a wholly-owned subsidiary of R.G.Global Lifestyles, Inc.

 

----
V 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 910 

For the relief of Judge John S. Unpingco. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2009 

Ms. BORDALLO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Judge John S. Unpingco. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SATISFACTION OF AGE AND SERVICE REQUIRE4 MENTS. 

5 Judge John S. Unpingco of Piti, Guam, shall be 

6 deemed to have met the age requirement set forth in sec7 tion 373(e) of title 28, United States Code, and the service 

8 requirement set forth in section 373(e)(1) of title 28 of 

9 such Code. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
## NUMBER 13 - 14 - 00 230 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

REY ORTIZ , Appellant ,
v. LUIS MANUEL SINGLETERRY , Appellee.

On a ppeal from the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## ORDER
Before Justices Garza , Benavides , and Perkes

Order Per Curiam
This cause is before the Court regarding the briefing schedule for this accelerated appeal under the Texas Election Code. T he reporter’s record in this case was filed on April 22, 2014. That same day, appellant Rey Ortiz filed a motion f or extension of time to file his brief until May 5, 2014. According to the motion for extension of time, theHonorable J. Manuel Banales ord ered the r eporter's r ecord and the c lerk's r ecord to be

filed with this Court by April 18, 2014 and that a ppellant's b rief was to be filed with this Court by April 25, 2014. See T EX

. E LEC

. C ODE A NN

. § 232.014(d) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). The el ection code also provides that this Court may review these deadlines on motion of a party. See id

. Appellant's counsel was able to secure a copy of the r eporter's r ecord on April 18, 2014 but has not yet rece ived the c lerk's r ecord and has been informed that the c lerk's r ecord will be filed by April 28, 2014. Appellant thus requests an extension of time for ten days, until May 5, 2014, to file h is brief in this cause
p rovided that the c lerk's r ecord is secure d no later than April 28, 2014

. The clerk notified this Court on April 23, 2014 that the record will be filed in this Court no later than April 24, 2014. The Court, having fully examined and considered appell ant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief in this cause and the nature of the case, is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, the m otion for extension of time to file the brief should be granted in part and denied in part with order. The Court GRANTS appellant’s motion for extension of time but ORDERS appellant’s brief to be filed in this cause on or before May
2 , 2014. The Court further ORDERS appellee’s brief to be filed in this cause seven days thereafter, or on or before May 9 , 201 4. Absent truly exigent circumstances, the Court will not favorably entertain further motions for extension of time in this case. PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 23rd day of April, 20 1 4

.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rohan Alexander WALTERS, a/k/a Dave, a/k/a Rohan Williams, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-7643.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 5, 2010.

Decided: May 11, 2010.

*334Rohan Alexander Walters, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rohan Alexander Walters appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for writ of audita querela. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Walters,*Nos. 2:97-cr-00157-2; 2:09-cv-00589 (S.D.W.Va. Aug. 21, 2009). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      104
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,932
<PP&E>                                           1,001
<DEPRECIATION>                                     601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,397
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,736
<OTHER-SE>                                    (19,306)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,357
<SALES>                                            787
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   787
<CGS>                                              569
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      569
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,756
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,532
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,640)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (5,201)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,841)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.14)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20109

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN BAUTISTA ROSAS CUELLAR,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-405-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Bautista Rosas Cuellar appeals the within-Guideline 23-month 

sentence for illegal reentry after an aggravated felony conviction, under 

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2). The district court imposed an 8-level enhancement 

under former U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) because Cuellar’s prior, 2012 illegal 

reentry offense was an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(O).

Cuellar argues that the district court erroneously imposed the § 2L1.2 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20109 Document: 00514650141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2018
No. 18-20109

2

enhancement because the offense underlying his 2012 illegal reentry offense,

a Texas offense for delivery of a controlled substance, is not an aggravated 

felony and thus his 2012 illegal reentry offense is not an aggravated felony. He 

concedes, however, that his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, and he 

advances it to preserve it for further appellate review. 

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance, requesting alternatively an extension of time to file its brief. 

Summary affirmance is proper where, among other instances, “the position of 

one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no 

substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. 

Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 

In United States v. Gamboa-Garcia, 620 F.3d 546, 549 (5th Cir. 2010), 

we concluded that the sentencing court was entitled to refer to a prior illegal 

reentry conviction as an aggravated felony without revisiting whether the

underlying prior conviction was an aggravated felony. We emphasized that, in 

pleading guilty to his prior illegal reentry offense, the defendant acknowledged 

that he was subject to § 1326(b)(2) because of a prior aggravated felony 

conviction. Id. The circumstances of Cuellar’s plea “eliminate[] the 

interpretive question []he raises here.” See id. Accordingly, the parties are 

correct that Cuellar’s challenge is foreclosed. See also United States v. PiedraMorales, 843 F.3d 623, 624-25 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1361 

(2017).

In view of the foregoing, the Government’s motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED. The Government’s alternative motion for an 

extension of time to file a brief is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. The judgment 

of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-20109 Document: 00514650141 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2018
NORRIS NELSON,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-2318

Opinion filed October 14, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Norris Nelson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Eric Gonzalez, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

WETHERELL, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.