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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10818

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

BRITT MICHAEL GRESHAM,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-38-2

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Britt Gresham has moved for leave 

 

* 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

February 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10818 Document: 00513881619 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2017
No. 16-10818

2

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez, 825 F.3d 787, 788 

(5th Cir. 2016). Gresham has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

brief, Gresham’s response, 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, the 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. Gresham’s request for appointment of substitute counsel 

is DENIED. Gresham’s motion for remand or tolling of the limitation period 

is DENIED.

 Case: 16-10818 Document: 00513881619 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2017
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following (i)
Registration Statement No. 2-82186 on Form S-8 filed March 3, 1983; (ii)
Registration Statement No. 33-48363 on Form S-8 filed June 3, 1992; (iii)
Registration Statement No. 33-79146 on Form S-8 filed May 19, 1994; (iv)
Registration Statement No. 333-06021 on Form S-8 filed June 14, 1996; (v)
Registration Statement No. 333-48697 on Form S-8 filed March 26, 1998; and (vi)
Registration Statement No. 333-57585 on Form S-8 filed June 24, 1998, and in the
related Prospectuses, of our report dated August 10, 2000 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of WMS Industries Inc. and
subsidiaries, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of WMS Industries Inc.
for the year ended June 30, 2000.


                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
September 22, 2000
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilberto MUNOZ-DE LA CRUZ, also known as Mario Solis-Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50745.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*608PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gilberto Munoz-de la Cruz raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing ■ factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT VICTOR RIVERA, MILAGROS ROSAS, ) and ROSA RAMOS, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-27 ) SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ )
Opinion filed May 24, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Rex M. Barbas, Judge. Melissa A. Giasi of Sivyer Barlow & Watson, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants. Anthony J. Russo and Mihaela Cabulea of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.3



                                  CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Annual Report of AFP Imaging Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I Elise Nissen, Chief Financial 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) 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.


/s/       Elise Nissen


Elise Nissen,
Chief Financial Officer
September 27, 2005
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Advantage Capital Development Corp. for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2006, I, Jeffrey Sternberg, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Advantage Capital Development Corp. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

1. Such Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Advantage Capital Development Corp.

 
| Dated: | August 30, 2006 |
|--------|-----------------|

 

 

**ADVANTAGE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT CORP.**

 

By:*/s/ Jeffrey Sternberg*

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH
FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                             358
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,956
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,113
<INVENTORY>                                      5,044
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,682
<PP&E>                                          11,324
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,910
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,790
<BONDS>                                         13,071
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           323
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,700
<SALES>                                         36,371
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,296
<CGS>                                           26,769
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,331
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,532
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,409
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                       912
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,188
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,188
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.99
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American Express
Certificate Company (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Paula R. Meyer, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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 Report fully complies with the requirements of 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.

    /s/ Paula R. Meyer
    ------------------------------
Name:   Paula R. Meyer
Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Date:   May 15, 2003
Exhibit 21



SUBSIDIARIES



|                                       |  |                        |  |                                        
|-------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Subsidiary                             |  | State of Incorporation |  | % Owned                                
|StatSpin, Inc.                         |  | Massachusetts          |  | 100%                                   
|                                       |  |                       
|Iris Global Network, Inc.              |  | Delaware               |  | 100%                                   
|                                       |  |                       
|Poly U/A Systems, Inc.                 |  | Delaware               |  | 100%                                   
|                                       |  |                       
|Advanced Digital Imaging Research, LLC |  | Texas                  |  | 100% owned by StatSpin, Inc.           
|                                       |  |                       
|Iris Diagnostics France S. A.          |  | France                 |  | 100% owned by Iris Global Network, Inc.
|                                       |  |                       
|Iris Deutschland GmbH                  |  | Germany                |  | 100% owned by Iris Global Network, Inc.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5266 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 21, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

AN ACT 

To extend the final report deadline and otherwise reauthorize 

the National Commission on Children and Disasters. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5266 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Commission 

3 on Children and Disasters Reauthorization Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND DISAS5 TERS REAUTHORIZATION. 

6 (a) DEADLINE FOR FILLING VACANCIES.—Para7 graph (2) of section 605(g) of the Kids in Disasters Well8 being, Safety, and Health Act of 2007 (title VI of division 

9 G of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public 

10 Law 110–161; 121 Stat. 1844, 2213)) is amended by in11 serting ‘‘not later than 90 days after the date of vacancy’’ 

12 after ‘‘shall be filled’’. 

13 (b) FREQUENCY OF INTERIM REPORTS.—Subsection 

14 (a) of section 611 of the Kids in Disasters Well-being, 

15 Safety, and Health Act of 2007 is amended— 

16 (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ‘‘IN17 TERIM REPORT’’ and inserting ‘‘INTERIM RE18 PORTS’’; and 

19 (2) by inserting ‘‘and annually thereafter’’ after 

20 ‘‘first meeting’’. 

21 (c) DEADLINE FOR FINAL REPORT.—Subsection (c) 

22 of section 611 of the Kids in Disasters Well-being, Safety, 

23 and Health Act of 2007 is amended by striking ‘‘not later 

24 than 2 years after the date of its first meeting’’ and insert25 ing ‘‘not later than December 31, 2012’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5266 RFS 

1 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

2 612 of such Act is amended to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 612. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

4 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appro5 priated to carry out this title $1,500,000 for each of fiscal 

6 years 2008 through 2012, and $1,000,000 for fiscal year 

7 2013. 

8 ‘‘(b) AVAILABILITY.—Amounts made available pursu9 ant to subsection (a) shall remain available until ex10 pended.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 20, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

131578 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, JOSEPH RAYES and SANDY RAYES, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 131578 COA: 257683 Macomb CC: 2003-004592-CK ALLMERICA FINANCIAL, CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant.

and

GREAT WEST CASU ALTY COMPANY, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 23, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

C ORRIGAN
, J., would grant leave to appeal to consider the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion.

p1122 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.

November 30, 2006

Clerk
#### WILSON EARL LOVE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7591

November 27, 1974

528 P.2d 703

*384
      *Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General; *Roy A. Woof ter,*District Attorney, and *Dan M. Seaton,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

By the Court,

Zenoff, J.:

Wilson Earl Love was charged with sale of controlled substance under NRS 453.321 and NRS 453.161 and found guilty.

On November 26, 1972 Love accompanied an undercover agent of the North Las Vegas Police Department to the Brown Derby Bar, wherein Love purchased heroin which he then turned over to the undercover agent. Based on that conduct he was arrested and convicted.

The issue on appeal is whether Love was denied a fair and impartial trial based on alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct which includes (1) reference before the jury to *385the transaction in question as a “crime” (2) by the making of several improper and prejudicial statements as to the character and ethics of Love’s counsel and Love, and (3) by appealing to the emotions of the jury. This court need not determine the merit of these allegations for at the time these remarks were made by the prosecutor no objection was made by Love’s counsel. Failure to object to the prosecutor’s remarks at the time they were made precludes reviewing the court’s consideration. Sorce v. State, 88 Nev. 350, 353, 497 P.2d 902 (1972); Bonnenfant v. State, 86 Nev. 393, 396, 469 P.2d 401 (1970).

As to two other alleged instances of misconduct, the record on appeal indicates that Love’s counsel did object. The conduct involves the inquiry of the prosecutor as to whether Love would like to volunteer any evidence and the prosecutor’s comment, “Well, I am sure the point is not lost,” after an objection had been made and sustained. The trial court properly sustained Love’s counsel’s objections as to this conduct and later in its instructions to the jury admonished them to disregard any reference thereto in the formation of their verdict.

The comments were obscure. In the facts of this case, the remarks at most were harmless error. Tucker v. State, 86 Nev. 354, 357, 469 P.2d 62 (1970); Bonnenfant v. State, supra, at 396; Dotson v. State, 80 Nev. 42, 46, 389 P.2d 77 (1964).

Affirmed.

Thompson, C. L, and Mowbray, Gunderson, and Bat-jer, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 11


         INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

            Computation of Earnings (Loss) per Common Share
                               (unaudited)

               (in thousands, except per share amounts)




                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                 -------------------
                                                  May 31,     May 31,
                                                    1999        1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Average shares of common stock outstanding        18,756      18,765
Dilutive potential common shares                      91           -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Average shares outstanding assuming
  full dilution                                   18,847      18,765
====================================================================

Earnings (loss) from continuing
  operations                                     $ 4,562    $(14,615)
Loss from discontinued operations                 (7,800)     (9,686)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Net loss applicable to common stock              $(3,238)   $(24,301)
====================================================================

Basic earnings (loss) per share:
  Continuing operations                          $   .24    $   (.78)
  Discontinued operations                           (.41)       (.52)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total                                        $  (.17)   $  (1.30)
====================================================================

Diluted earnings (loss) per share:
  Continuing operations                          $   .24    $   (.78)
  Discontinued operations                           (.41)       (.52)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total                                        $  (.17)   $  (1.30)
====================================================================



Basic earnings (loss) per share are computed by dividing net earnings
(loss) by the weighted average number of shares of common stock
outstanding during the period.

Diluted earnings per share are computed similar to basic earnings per
share except that the weighted average shares outstanding are increased
to include additional shares from the assumed exercise of stock options,
if dilutive.  The number of additional shares is calculated by assuming
that outstanding stock options were exercised and that the proceeds from
such exercises were used to acquire shares of common stock at the
average market price during the period.
## NUMBER 13 -23-00547-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

ALICIA GONZALEZ AND NICOLE TREBILCOCK , Appellant s,

v. COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION , Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 of Nueces C ounty, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Longoria, Silva , and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva2 A ppellant s Alicia Gonzalez and Nicole Trebilock attempt to appeal the trial court’s November 21, 2023 order granting a ppellee Coastal Conservation Association’s motion
to dismiss

. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not an appealable interlocutory order or a final appealable order. “[A]n order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocal ly states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191 , 205 (Tex. 20 01 ) . The order clearly states that it was reserving the determination of appellee’s attorney’s fees for a later date. See Trane US, Inc. v. Sublett , 501 S.W.3d 783 , 787 (Tex. App.

—Amarillo 2016, no pet.) (per curiam) (concluding that an order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act was not final because it “expressly [left] for future disposition the statutorily

- required award of attorney’s fees and sanctions” (citing T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 27.009(a))). On January 5, 2024 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellants of this defect and warned that if the defect was not corrected within ten days, the appeal would be
dismissed. S ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b), (c)

. Appellants failed to correct the defect. Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, this Court has no jurisdiction over this appeal. S ee Olgetree v. Matthews , 262 S.W.3d 316 , 319 n.1 (Tex. 20 07 ); Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 195.3 The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants’ failure to correct the defect, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. S ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 1 See id

. R. 42.3(a ), (c).

CLARISSA SILVA Justice
Delivered and filed on the 25th d ay of January , 202 4.

1 Appellants filed a motion to consolidate this case with appellate cause number 13

- 23

- 0054 2- CV , also pending before this Court and stemming from the same trial court case. Appellants’ motions are denied as moot.