alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

July 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51445

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIO MARTINEZ-NAVARRETE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-CR-218-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Julio MartinezNavarrete raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (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.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 30, 2016

NO. 03

- 15

- 00324

- CV

Jean

- Michel Guerin, Appellant

v.

Tina Renee Leone, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTIC ES PEMBERTON AND BOU RLAND

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the decree signed by the distri ct court on February 27, 2015. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the district court’s decree . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the district court’s decree

. The

appellant shall pay al l costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Steven WATSON, Appellant.

No. WD 41425.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 7, 1989.

Sean O’Brien, Public Defender, John L. Vohs, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and KENNEDY and GAITAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from a conviction of tampering in the first degree, and from a sentence of two years imprisonment.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), each of the undersigned officers of Excelsior Venture Partners III, LLC (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|               |  |  |  |        |  |                                      
|-------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|               |  |  |  |       
|               |  |  | 
|Date: 01/25/08 |  |  |  |        |  | /S/    DAVID R. BAILIN               
|               |  |  |  | Name:  |  | David R. Bailin                      
|               |  |  |  | Title: |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer           
|               |  |  |  |       
|               |  |  | 
|Date: 01/25/08 |  |  |  |        |  | /S/    RAGHAV V.
NANDAGOPAL          
|               |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Raghav V. Nandagopal                 
|               |  |  |  | Title: |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer           
|               |  |  |  |       
|               |  |  | 
|Date: 01/25/08 |  |  |  |        |  | /S/    STEVEN L.
SUSS                
|               |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Steven L. Suss                       
|               |  |  |  | Title: |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separate disclosure document.
#### EMERALD OAKS HOTEL/CONFERENCE CENTER, INC., et al., Relators, v. The Honorable Antonio A. ZARDENETTA, Judge, Respondent.

No. C-8971.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Sept. 13, 1989.

Michael F. Pezzulli, Charles J. Fortunato, Dallas, for relators.

*578Don H. Magee, Austin, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this original mandamus proceeding is whether an oral pronouncement and docket entry may be used in lieu of a written order to reinstate a cause previously dismissed for want of prosecution. A majority of the court answers no and holds that an order of reinstatement must be in writing and signed during the period of the trial court’s plenary power and jurisdiction. The trial court’s order of reinstatement conflicts with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3) and *Walker v. Harrison,*597 S.W.2d 913 (Tex.1980, orig. proceeding).

Relators Emerald Oaks Hotel/Conference Center, Inc., Allan Clark, and Joseph E. Casperone were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by Pan Tex Hotel Corporation and Conference Center Development Corporation in December 1985. This lawsuit was dismissed for want of prosecution by written order signed on July 27, 1988.

Pan Tex timely filed a motion to reinstate. Tex.R.Civ.P. 165a(3). A docket entry indicates that on the day the motion to reinstate was filed, the trial court granted the motion and directed the attorney for Pan Tex to submit an order for signature. A written order reinstating the cause was not signed until November 30, 1988, 126 days after the date of the order of dismissal.

As required by rule, relator has first sought mandamus relief in the court of appeals. Tex.R.App.P. 121(a)(1). After that court refused relief, relator filed a motion in this court urging that the trial court’s plenary power over its judgment of dismissal ended on November 9, 1988, that being 105 days after the order of dismissal. A majority of the court agrees.

Rule 165a(3) provides that a motion to reinstate is overruled by operation of law if “for any reason a motion for reinstatement is not *decided by a signed written order*within 75 days after the judgment is signed ...” (Emphasis added). Tex.R.Civ.P. 165a(3). Thereafter the court retains plenary power and jurisdiction over the cause for an additional 30 days. *Id.*No written order of reinstatement having been signed during this 106-day period, the judgment of dismissal became final, terminating the trial court’s plenary power over its judgment. *Walker,*697 S.W.2d at 915. A trial court’s oral pronouncement and docket entry reinstating a cause is not an acceptable substitute for the written order required by rule. *See Clark and Co. v. Giles,*639 S.W.2d 449, 450 (Tex.1982, orig. proceeding).

Relators’ motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus is granted and, without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to vacate its order of November 30, 1988 reinstating the cause. Tex.R.App.P. 122. The writ of mandamus will issue only in the event the trial court fails to comply with the judgment of this court.
EXHIBIT 3.3

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT    OF    SIXTH AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION    OF    BEACON POWER CORPORATION

Beacon
Power Corporation (the "Corporation"), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware, does hereby certify:



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment has been executed by the President of the Company this 26th day of June, 2007.

| |  | BEACON POWER CORPORATION
| |  | ------------------------
| |  | By:                     
| |  | Name:                   
| |  | Title:                  

---



QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT FO R THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. DA 19-0038 MARVIN CURE, Defendant And Appellant,

v. STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff And Appellee. ORDER Upon consideration of the Moti on to Withdraw as Counsel of Rec ord, and with good cause appearing therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defe ndant and Appellant in this matte r, Marvin Cure, shall file a respons e to this motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The response must be served upon all counsel of record, including the Attorney General, the County Attorney, and the Appellate De fender’s Office.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Cl erk of this Court shall give n otice of this Order by mail to all counsel of record and to Defendant an d Appellant Marvin Cure at that person’s last known address.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 6 2020

07/06/2020
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Yacht Finders, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Geoffrey Greenwood, 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) 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
9th day of October, 2007.


/s/ Geoffrey Greenwood
------------------------------
Geoffrey Greenwood
Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      31.2**




CERTIFICATIONS






I,
      James
      C. Louney, certify that:




1. I
      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Lightspace
      Corporation;




2. Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
      fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
      in
      light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
      for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




(a) 
      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
      during the period in which this report is being prepared;




(b) 
      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
      by this report based on such evaluation; and




(c) 
      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
      quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




5. The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
      registrant’s auditors and the registrant’s board of directors:




(a) 
      All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
      report financial information; and




(b) 
      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting.






November
      17, 2006




/s/
                James C. LouneyJames
                C. LouneyChief
                Financial Officer







30
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24

- 6264

TOCCARA YVONNE PULLER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
ARLINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF ’ S OFFICE; ARLINGTON COUNTY P&P; MEDIKO; ARLINGTON COUNTY C.P.S.; ARLINGTON COUNTY D.S.S.; ARLINGTON COUNTY D.H.S.; VIRGINIA HOSPITAL CENTER; P.S.H.; H.U.D. ARLINGTON COUNTY; PACT PROGRAM; ARLINGTON COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; CENTRAL STATE HOSPITAL; D.S.K. LAW; NEWTON TURNER; WILLIAM TURNER; BILL TURNER GAL; UNKNOWN; DE ’ ANDRE DAVIS; ARLINGTON COUNTY JDR; ARLINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT , Defendants

- Appellees

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Mark R. Colombell , Magistrate Judge. ( 3:23

- cv - 00756

- JAG

- MRC )

Submitted : September 19, 2024 Decided: September 24, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Toccara Yvonne Puller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6264 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Toccara Yvonne Puller seeks to appeal the magistrate judge ’s order denying without prejudice Puller’s motions for counsel, discovery, and a jury trial . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Puller seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. According ly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Puller’s motion for a jury trial. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 24-6264 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Terrance BATES, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 61723.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 13, 1992.

Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for movant-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035 motion. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
----

----

| (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Uniontown Energy Inc. for the period ended July 31, 2011 (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 Uniontown Energy Inc. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  September 19, 2011 |   |                                                                         |
|--------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |   |                                                                         |
|                                 |   |                                                                         |
|                                 |   | /s/ Michael Butterfield                                                      |   |   |
|                                 |   | Michael Butterfield                                                          |
|                                 |   | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer) |
|                                 |   | UNIONTOWN ENERGY INC.                                                        |
|                                 |   |                                                                         |

----

----
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles D. BROWN, Appellant.

No. WD41070.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 18, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 29, 1989.

Sean D. O’Brien, Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

John Munson Morris III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., LOWENSTEIN and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a conviction of forcible rape and from a sentence of thirty years imprisonment.

Affirmed. Rule 30.26(b).
#### Stanley WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 47900.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 25, 1994.

Gary E. Brotherton, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and HANNA and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

REBECA RODRIGUEZ , Appellant ,

v
. MARIO RODRIGUEZ , Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 0 41

- CV

Appeal from the
388th District Court

o f El Paso C ounty, Texas (TC# 2010CM2088 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction . Finding that there is no final judgment or appeal able order , we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. It is well settled that appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and interlocutory orders made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corporation , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); T EX .C IV .P RAC

. & R E M .C ODE A NN . § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). Appellant filed notice of appeal indicating that she is appealing an interlocutory order signed by the trial court on January 10, 2019 granting a motion to disqualify Appellant’s attorney. No statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order disqualifying
counsel. The Clerk of the Court sent Appellant notice that the Court intended to dismiss the appeal- 2

-

for lack of juri sdiction because there is no final judgment or appealable order

. Appellant did not file any response. Accordingly, we dismiss the attempted appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice February 15, 2019 Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350
 (Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global Geophysical Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard A. Degner, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
 
 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.
 
 
 Dated: May 6, 2011

/s/ Richard A. DegnerRichard A. DegnerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of ForeFront Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Richard M. Gozia, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Randall J. Frapart, Chief Financial 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 to the best of our knowledge:

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 ForeFront Holdings, Inc.

Dated: November 29, 2007



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/ Richard M. Gozia           
|Richard M. Gozia               
|Interim Chief Executive Officer
|                               
|/s/ Randall J. Frapart         
|Randall J. Frapart             
|Chief Financial Officer