alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2806

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Leon Powell, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 2, 2008

 Filed: October 7, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leon Powell appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Powell’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The government has moved

to dismiss the appeal based on an appeal waiver in Powell’s plea agreement.
-2-

We enforce the appeal waiver, because Powell knowingly and voluntarily

entered into both the plea agreement and the waiver, the arguments on appeal fall

within the scope of the appeal waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would result from

enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.

2003) (en banc).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal beyond the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion and dismiss this appeal. We also

grant defense counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform

appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 30, 2014.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D13-2601

Lower Tribunal No. 12-47394

________________



### Rosa Marin and Smart Cars and Trucks Corporation

, Appellants,

vs.



### Obed Limonte, Frank De La Oliva and Exus Isuzu Parts,

Corporation

, Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beth Bloom

, Judge.

Jason M. Wandner, P.A., Jason M. Wandner

, for appellants.

Claudio R. Cedrez Pellegrino, for appellees.

Before SUAREZ, SALTER, and LOGUE, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

LOGUE, J.Appellees, Obed Limonte, Frank De La Oliva, and Exus Isuzu Parts,

Corporation, move to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

because the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the final judgment.

For the reasons set forth below, we deny the motion to dismiss.

On August 23, 2013, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of

appellees. On August 26, 2013, appellants, Rosa Marin and Smart Car and Trucks

Corporation, filed a motion for rehearing. On August 29, 2013, the trial court

entered a final judgment dismissing appellants’ claims with prejudice. The trial

court subsequently denied appellants’ motion for rehearing on September 25, 2013.

Appellants filed their notice of appeal on October 2, 2013, which indicates that

they are taking an appeal from the order granting summary judgment and

subsequent denial of rehearing.

Appellees assert that the motion for rehearing did not toll the time for filing

a notice of appeal, because the motion was directed at a non-final, non-appealable

order granting summary judgment, and was therefore an “unauthorized” motion.

Where, as here, there is “no substantive difference between the rights adjudicated

in the order granting summary judgment (i.e., the interlocutory order) and the final

summary judgment

. . . ‘there is no impediment to treating the motion for rehearing

as an authorized, premature motion, tolling the time for filing a notice of appeal.’”

Simpson v. Tarmac Am., LLC

, 106 So. 3d 87, 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (quoting

2Bass v. Jones

, 511 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)). Accordingly, the motion to

dismiss is denied.

3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**LAMONT ELLISON,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 482 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 31st day of December, 2015, the Petition for Al lowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**

**Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of t his matter.**
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

NICOLE BARONE,

Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1495

[October 26, 2017]

Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

CACE11025064.

Nicole Barone, Lighthouse Point, pro se.

Sara F. Holladay-Tobias of McGuire Woods LLP, Jacksonville, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# Official Journal L 139/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.139.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 139 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5526 May 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.139.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 139

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5526 May 2012

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2012/268/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 29 June 2011 on State aid SA.14554 (C 7/04) implemented by Germany for the Gesellschaft für Weinabsatz (Wine Marketing Company)
  (notified under document C(2011) 4426) | 1 |
| | | 2012/269/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 29 June 2011 on the State aid No SA.32504 (2011/N) and C 11/10 (ex N 667/09) implemented by Ireland for Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society
  (notified under document C(2011) 4432)

   (1) | 18 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

2012/268/EU

*

Commission Decision of 29 June 2011 on State aid SA.14554 (C 7/04) implemented by Germany for the Gesellschaft für Weinabsatz (Wine Marketing Company)
  (notified under document C(2011) 4426)

(notified under document C(2011) 4426)

1

2012/269/EU

*

Commission Decision of 29 June 2011 on the State aid No SA.32504 (2011/N) and C 11/10 (ex N 667/09) implemented by Ireland for Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society
  (notified under document C(2011) 4432)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2011) 4432)

18

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Exhibit 32.1



                 STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
              FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended  December 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-KSB") of Guaranty  Financial  Corporation
(the  "Company"),  we,  William E. Doyle,  Jr.,  President  and Chief  Executive
Officer, and Tara Y. Harrison,  Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

         (a)  the Form 10-KSB fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (b)  the information  contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly  presents, in
all material  respects,  the  consolidated  financial  condition  and results of
operations  of the  Company  and its  subsidiaries  as of, and for,  the periods
presented in the Form 10-KSB.


Date:  April 13, 2004                    /s/ William E. Doyle, Jr.
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         William E. Doyle, Jr.
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer





Date:  April 13, 2004                    /s/ Tara Y. Harrison
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Tara Y. Harrison
                                         Chief Financial Officer
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.D., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

MEDICAL CENTER, Fayetteville, NC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-0253 

Issued: June 26, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Ditty S. Bhatti, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

The Board issued a decision and order in the above-entitled matter on May 5, 2015. By 

that decision, the Board affirmed a May 16, 2013 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs (OWCP), finding that OWCP made a proper finding regarding 

appellant’s wage-earning capacity. However, the Clerk of the Board inadvertently misaddressed 

the May 5, 2015 decision, and mailed it to an incorrect address. 

In Bertha Keeble,

1

 the Board, citing to Ralph W. Moody,

2

 noted that a decision of the 

Board is issued when it is filed and mailed, and that the presumption will be that this was 

accomplished on the date the decision is dated.3

 The Board found in Keeble that, as the decision 

was mailed to an incorrect address, such decision was not issued. Consequently, the Board 

ordered that the decision be reissued. 

Similarly, in the instant case, the Board inadvertently addressed and mailed the 

May 5, 2015 decision to an incorrect address. As in Keeble, since the Board mailed the 

 1

 45 ECAB 355 (1994). 

2

 44 ECAB 375 (1993). 

3

 See supra note 1 at 356. See also S.B., Docket No. 14-749 (issued September 12, 2014). 
2

May 5, 2015 decision to an incorrect address, the Board concludes that such decision was not 

properly issued and must be reissued. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Board’s May 5, 2015 decision is reissued. 

Issued: June 26, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
Exhibit 32


                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 Xynergy Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Edward
Rose, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbannes-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.


     Dated: October 29, 2004          By: s/s Edward Rose
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
                                          Director

<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32


                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 Xynergy Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Raquel
Zepeda, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and Director of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbannes-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.


     Dated: October 29, 2004           By: s/s Raquel Zepeda
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and
                                           Director
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12

- 13605
Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:12

- cr

- 00011

- IPJ

- JEO

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

DANNY MICHAEL WILKES

, Defendant

- Appellant.

__________________________ Appeal from the Unit ed States District Co urt for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________
(May 21, 2013)

Before HULL, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

J. Brice Callaway , appointed counsel for Danny Wilkes in this direct criminal

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d

493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel = s

Case: 12-13605 Date Filed: 05/21/2013 Page: 1 of 22 assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel = s

motion to withdr aw is GRANTED , and Wilkes = s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED

. Case: 12-13605 Date Filed: 05/21/2013 Page: 2 of 2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136264 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136264 

 COA: 280413 

Jackson CC: 03-000564-FC 

CHESTER PHIL LLOYD COLE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 3, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1020 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
In the Matter of Kay Frances Redmond, by and through Linda Nichols, Administratrix of the Estate of Kay Frances Redmond, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program

No. 86A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mr. Edwin A. Pressly, Ms. Elizabeth M. Haddix, Mr. Mark Dorosin, Attorneys at Law, For Nicols, Linda (Administratrix), et al.

Mr. Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, For State of North Carolina

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Claimant on the 11th of March 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of March 2016 by Claimant to Consolidate Appeals:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Claimant's new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 10th day of June 2016.
TOWN OF BOONE v. STATE of North Carolina, et al.

No. 93A15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 21, 2016.

Lauren M. Clemmons, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Jim W. Phillips, Jr., Greensboro, for Town of Boone.

Julia C. Ambrose, Raleigh, for Town of Boone.

Daniel F.E. Smith, Greensboro, for Town of Boone.

Stacy C. Eggers, IV, Boone, for County of Watauga.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File *604Brief filed on the 21st of January 2016 by Plaintiff:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of January 2016."
#### Michael Earl HUNT, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 61196.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 8, 2003.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 2, 2003.

Daniel L. Mohs, St. Louis, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John Munson Morris, Office of Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Chief Judge, Presiding Judge, HAROLD L. LOWENSTEIN, Judge, and RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Judge.

ORDER

David Smiley appeals the denial, after partial evidentiary hearing, of his motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15. That motion alleged that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel concerning: (1) alleged failure of trial counsel to adequately investigate a possible duress defense, (2) trial counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument, and (3) trial counsel’s misleading him regarding the effect of deciding not to testify in his own defense.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no prec-edential or jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
# C_2008223EN.01005803.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/58

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — CityLine Hungary v Commission

(Case T-237/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 223/104)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Language of the case: Hungarian

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
NUMBER 13-08-00458-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

JOSE T. SANDOVAL D/B/A 

OJ'S QUICK STOP AND 

SANDOVAL ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant,

v.

WRIGHT PETROLEUM COMPANY, INC., Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Jose T. Sandoval d/b/a OJ’s Quick Stop and Sandoval Enterprises, Inc.,

attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No.

6 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CL-40,479-F. Judgment in this cause was

signed on April 29, 2008. A motion for new trial was filed on May 29, 2008. Pursuant to
2

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on July 28,

2008, but was not filed until July 29, 2008. 

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in

good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the

fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See

Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18, 619 (1997) (construing the predecessor to

Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing: it

is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins, 140 S.W.3d 462,

462 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App.–Waco

2002, no pet.).

On August 1, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that

steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that,

if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter,

the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant

providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.

 The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s

failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant’s failure to respond to this Court’s notice,

is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly,

the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a)(c).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 23rd day of October, 2008.