alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Bobby Joe Jones, Jr. v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-15-00358-CR

Trial court case number: CR-13-0430

Trial court: 22

nd District Court, Hays County, Texas

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Tanisa Jeffers. Appellant’s counsel was 

notified of the filing of the clerk’s record on May 14, 2015. The reporter’s record was filed on 

July 25, 2015. Appellant’s brief was due on August 5, 2015. On August 14, 2015, the Clerk of 

the Court notified appellant’s counsel that a brief had not yet been filed and required a response 

within 10 days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). On September 23, 2015, appointed counsel filed 

a letter, asking for another copy of the record, claiming her copy was lost. The record was sent 

to her on September 25, 2015. Counsel has filed no motions for extension of time to file the 

brief.

Appellant’s brief is due 30 days from the date of this order. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). The 

State’s brief is due 30 days after appellant’s brief is filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 15, 2015
Order entered January 27, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01004-CV

ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant

V.

SUZZETT YARUM, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-02852-C

ORDER

By order dated January 9, 2023, we notified Janet Wright, the official court 

reporter for County Court at Law No. 2, that the reporter’s record in this case was 

overdue and ordered her to file either (1) the reporter’s record, (2) written 

verification no hearings were recorded, or (3) written verification appellant has not 

paid for or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. Ms. Wright has not 

responded to the Court’s order. However, appellant filed a letter informing the 

Court that it had requested the reporter’s record, been in contact with Ms. Wright
regarding the cost of the record, and was ready and willing to pay for the record 

once Ms. Wright informs appellant of the cost of the record. 

Accordingly, we ORDER Janet Wright to file the reporter’s record by 

February 13, 2023. 

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to:

Honorable Sally Montgomery 

Presiding Judge

County Court at Law No. 3 

Janet Wright

Official Court Reporter

County Court at Law No. 3

All parties

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
STATE v. Dane LOCKLEAR, Jr.

No. 578A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 17, 2005.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of November 2005 by Defendant Motion to Extend Time to Prepare Transcript:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 19th day of December 2005 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of November 2005."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
LESLIE CHARLIE VAN WINKLE, AKA Leslie C Van Winkle,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 10499

D.C. No. 3:01

- cr

- 00181

- SPL

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven P. Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2019 **

Before : SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Leslie Charlie Van Winkle appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 30

- month sentence imposed upon his third revocation of supervised

release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Van Winkle first argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

exce pt as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

AUG 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 10499

to address his arguments regarding his brain damage and to explain the above

Guidelines sentence. The district court did not plainly err. See United States v.

Valencia

- Barragan
, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010)

. The court considered

Van Winkle’s arguments and sufficiently explained that the upward variance was

warranted in light of Van Winkle’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust, the need

to protect the public, and Van Winkle’s unsuitability for superv ision. See United

States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)

.
Van Winkle also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in

light of his brain damage and resulting cognitive deficiencies . The district court

did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)

sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51;

United States v. Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).

We decline to consider issues not specifically raised in Van Winkle’s

opening brief. See United States v. Kama , 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005)

. Van Winkle’s unopposed motion for judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED

.
SUNSCREEN CHEMICALS AND MARINE LIFE

How sunscreen chemicals enter our environment:

GY
Chemicals in some sunscreens GREEN ALGAE: MUSSELS:

that can harm marine life:

¢ 3-Benzylidene camphor
¢ 4-Methylbenzylidene
camphor
© Octocrylene
* Benzophenone-1 Vn
© Benzophenone-8
¢ OD-PABA AN

* nano-Titanium dioxide Can damage Can decrease fertility and Can accumulate in tissues and
® nano-Zinc oxide

@OciNGNatE immune and reproductive reproduction, and cause female be transferred to young.
* Oxybenzone systems, and deform young. characteristics in male fish.

Here are a few ways to protect ourselves and marine life:

Consider sunscreen without chemicals that can harm marine life, seek shade between 10 am & 2 pm, and use Ultraviolet Protection Factor (UPF) sunwear.

Oo. > a@-~-atn vy

Seek shade Umbrella Sun hat Sunscreen UV Sunglasses = Sun shirt Leggings
Revised Sep. 2020 oceanservice.noaa.gov/sunscreen
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Nikolette Ledesma and Elsa Estrada v. City of Houston

Appellate case number: 01-19-00034-CV

Trial court case number: 2017-84026

Trial court: 270th District Court of Harris County

The Court orders the parties to file supplemental briefs by March 5, 2020. See St. 

John Missionary Baptist Church v. Flake, No. 18-0513, 2020 WL 593694, at *2, 4 (Tex. 

Feb. 7, 2020); TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. The Court requests the parties to address the following 

issue:

If this Court decides to affirm summary judgment in favor of appellee, the 

City of Houston, do appellants, Nikolette Ledesma and Elsa Estrada, have 

any legal claim against Houston Police Department Officer Miranda 

Martinez aka Miraida Suarez?

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: February 13, 2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41593

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee 

v. 

HERMELINDO SEGUNDO, 

Defendant - Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:15-CR-1001-1 

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Hermelindo Segundo was sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment, 

following his guilty plea to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), 

(b). He contends the district court erred in applying the 16-level crime-ofviolence enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of 

his sentencing, based on his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation. 

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015 ed.). 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

Greatbe 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

April 24, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41593 Document: 00513965679 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2017
No. 15-41593

2 

Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, the 

district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly 

calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 48–51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved 

objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. DelgadoMartinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues 

preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; 

its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. CisnerosGutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). 

In 2008, Segundo was convicted of burglary of a habitation, in violation 

of Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a). Because § 30.02(a) is divisible, the court, under 

the modified categorical approach, may consider certain state documents. See

United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667, 670–71 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 2017 

WL 661924 (20 Mar. 2017). 

These documents show Segundo was convicted under § 30.02(a)(1), 

which constitutes generic burglary of a dwelling under the Guidelines. Id.; 

United States v. Conde-Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172, 178–79 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Accordingly, the court did not err in applying the enhancement. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015 ed.); Uribe, 838 F.3d at 671.

 AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-41593 Document: 00513965679 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2017
Harold M. BARBER and Linda V. Snow v. Alston W. BURKE.

No. 672P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Anthony M. Brannon, Raleigh, Ladd Gasparovic, for Alston W. Burke.

Ryal W. Tayloe, Wilmington, for Barber and Snow.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of December 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30459

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TIMOTHY THIGPEN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:06-CR-20102-1

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Timothy Thigpen appeals the 60-month sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction for interstate transmission of threatening communications

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875, arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. He

argues that because he did not have the intent to carry out the threats, the

district court should not have imposed the harshest available sentence.

Thigpen has not shown that the 60-month sentence imposed by the district

court was procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Thigpen does not argue

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 2, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30459

2

that the district court erred in calculating his advisory guideline range or made

any other significant procedural error. Although the 60-month statutory

maximum sentence was harsh, Thigpen has not shown that sentence was

substantively unreasonable. The district court gave numerous reasons for its

decision to impose the 60-month sentence based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors, including the nature of the offense, the history and characteristics of

Thigpen, and the need for just punishment, adequate deterrence, and to protect

the public from future crimes of Thigpen. The district court focused on the

seriousness of the offense, the additional counts in the indictment that were

dismissed, the numerous additional complaints from women who received

similar calls in Louisiana and Texas, and the impact of the offense on the

victims. The district court also considered the escalation of Thigpen’s conduct

and his need for mental health treatment for his sexual, alcohol, and gambling

addictions. 

After Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97 (2007), this court has

affirmed nonguideline sentences that involved significant departures from the

advisory guideline range. See, e.g., United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 350

(5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713, 723-24 (5th Cir.

2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2954 (2008); United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d

298, 315-16 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court did not abuse its discretion in

determining that a guideline sentence would not properly reflect the § 3553(a)

considerations. See Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 574-75 (2007);

see also United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809 (5th Cir. 2008). Because

the district court considered the appropriate § 3553(a) factors and gave sufficient

reasons for its decision to impose a nonguideline sentence, Thigpen has not

shown that the 60-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.
COKER, et al. v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP.

No. 532A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 22, 2005.

Mona Lisa Wallace, Salisbury, Cathy Williams, Gary K. Shipman, Wilmington, for James Coker, et al.

Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., Raleigh, Allison O. VanLanningham, Greensboro, Raymond M. Kethledge, Troy, MI, for DaimlerChrysler Corp.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of November *5482005 by Plaintiffs for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiffs (James Coker, et al) shall have up to and including the 20th day of December 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 22nd day of November 2005."
EXHIBIT 32.2 CFO CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906
 
 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 Marketing Worldwide, Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James Davis, 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, to my knowledge 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.
 
 /s/ James DavisJames DavisChief Financial OfficerMay 16, 2011
STATE v. McGILL.

No. COA05-1071.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from Catawba (03CRS9963, 03CRS9964)

Case without published opinion. No error.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of BIO-keyInternational, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the periodended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Francis J. Cusick, ChiefFinancial 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:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| BIO-KEY INTERNATIONAL, INC. |                       |   |   |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------|----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                             |                       |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| By:                              | /s/ FRANCIS J. CUSICK |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                             | Francis J. Cusick          |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                             | Chief Financial Officer    |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                             |                       |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Date: March 26, 2008        |                       |   |   |   |   |   |

 

 

 

----
**Exhibit 32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ZHONGPIN INC. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Xianfu Zhu, as Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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; and





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




Date:
                August 11, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Xianfu ZhuXianfu
                ZhuChief
                Executive Officer











This
      certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §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.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION
  (i)
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2007 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and(ii)
    
    that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Hansen Medical, Inc.
  /s/ Steven M. Van DickVice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT
32.1





SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.
C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, G.
Rowland Carey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
USA Superior Energy Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for
the period ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





/S/ G.
Rowland Carey


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


G.
Rowland Carey


Chief
Executive Officer


May 29,
2008








This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ¡ì 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, or otherwise required, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of ¡ì 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51437

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR ALBERTO GONZALES-ROBLES, also known as Victor Gonzalez, also

known as Victor Gonzalez-Robles, also known as Victor H Gonzales, also known

as Victor Gonzales,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-178-ALL

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Victor Alberto Gonzales-Robles has

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

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Gonzales-Robles has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 28, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51437

2

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DANIEL M. WOODS,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 64, 2020

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID Nos. 1701019682, 

§ 1702009077, 1702009428 (N)

§

§

 Submitted: April 17, 2020

 Decided: June 17, 2020

 Corrected: June 29, 2020

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs1and the record on appeal, we 

conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons 

assigned by the Superior Court in its January 29, 2020 Order denying the appellant’s 

first motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.2 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court 

is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

 

1 The appellant’s motion to strike the appellee’s answering brief based on minor mistakes in the Table 

of Citations is denied.

2

State v. Woods, 2020 WL 491187 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 29, 2020).