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

No. 17

- 11262 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

− Appellee ,

v ersus CRISTIAN GAMEZ MENDEZ, A lso K nown as Cristian Gomez, A lso K nown as Mendez Gamez, A lso K nown as Christian Gamez Mendez , Defendant

− Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 3:17

- CR

- 14

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Raising two issues, Cristian Gamez Mendez moves, unopposed, for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 21, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-11262 Document: 00514522275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2018No. 17

- 11262

2 summary disposition in t his appeal of his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after removal from the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2)

. He first maintains that the district court erred by sentencing him

to a term of supervised release exceeding one year because the enhancement provisions in § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. Next , he urges that his guilty plea was involuntary and accepted in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Proce

dure 11 because he was not admonished that the prior

- felony provisions of § 1326( b) stated an essential offense element that the g overnment was re

quired to prove to a j ury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gamez Mendez correctly conced es that his issues are foreclosed by
Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998)

. B ecause summ ary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the motion is GRANTED , and t he judgment is
AFFIRMED. Case: 17-11262 Document: 00514522275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2018
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In the Matter of: TERESA JEAN MOORE;

JENNIFER LAUREN MOORE,

Debtors

.

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

TERESA JEAN MOORE; JENNIFER

LAUREN MOORE,

Appellants,

v.

JOHN NELSO SPADARO; et al.,

Appellees. No. 18

- 16818

D.C. No. 5:17

- cv

- 03760

- EJD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2020 * *

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

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

except 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

JUL 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 16818

Chapter 13 debtors Teresa Jean Moore and Jennifer Lauren Moore appeal

pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their bankruptcy appeal for failure

to prosecute

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § § 158(d) and 1291. We

review for an abuse of discretion. Moneyma ker v. CoBen ( In re Eisen

) , 31 F.3d

1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994)

. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellants’

appeal for failure to prosecute or by denying appellants further time to oppose

defendant Kay’s motion to dismiss

, after it previously provided them numerous

extensions of time to perfect their appeal and opportunit ies to respond to the order s

to show cause

. See id. at 1451

- 56 (discussing factors for district court to weigh in

determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute; noting that dismissal

should not be disturbed unless there is a definite and firm conviction that the court

below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a

wei ghing of the relevant factors) ; Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. , 975 F.2d

604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court has broad discretion to manage its docket)

.

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we

do not conside r appellants’ challenges to the bankruptcy court’s orders or judgment

in the underlying adversary proceeding

.3 18

- 16818

Appellants’ motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 19) is denied as

unnecessary

.

AFFIRMED.
#### Mary Ellen LONG, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Terrence LONG, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 67877.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Aug. 6, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 9, 1996.

Charles P. Todt, Kimberly J. Bettisworth, The Todt Law Firm, St. Louis, for appellant.

Gerald P. Greiman, D. Dawn Conlisk, Dankenbring, Greiman, Osterholt & Hoff-mann, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before CRANE, C.J., and AHRENS, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

In this dissolution action, husband, Terrence Long, appeals the trial court’s division of marital property, award of maintenance to wife, Maiy Ellen Long, and award of attorney’s fees to wife’s attorney pursuant to its decree of dissolution entered November 8, 1994. The trial court’s decree is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and constitutes a proper declaration and application of the law. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The court’s division of marital property, award of maintenance and award of attorney’s fees was not an abuse of discretion. *Mills v. Mills,*663 S.W.2d 369 (Mo. App.1983).

A written opinion would have no prece-dential value and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information explaining the reasons for this order. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Rico READUS, Appellant. Rico READUS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 64673, 66093.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Jan. 24, 1995.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Rico Readus, appeals from his convictions, after a jury trial, of murder in the first degree, armed criminal action, robbery in the first degree, armed criminal action, assault in the first degree, and armed criminal action. He was sentenced to one term of life imprisonment without parole for *548the murder conviction, and five terms of life imprisonment for the remaining convictions, to be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to the term of life imprisonment without parole. No jurisprudential purpose wTould be served by a written opinion on defendant’s direct appeal. Defendant’s convictions are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Defendant’s convictions for murder in the first degree, armed criminal action, robbery in the first degree, armed criminal action, assault in the first degree, and armed criminal action are affirmed. The denial of defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion is affirmed.
1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mussalina Muhaymin as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

Muhammad Abdul Muhaymin Jr., 

Plaintiff,

v.

City of Phoenix, an Arizona Municipal 

Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: CV-17-04565-PHX-SMB

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Motions to Exclude Expert 

Testimony by Defendants’ Experts, Dr. Gary M. Vilke, Dr. Binh T. Ly and Greg Meyer, 

including the exhibits identified in the Motions. After review, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion [305] and sealing Plaintiff’s Motions, 

including the exhibits identified in the Motions.
2

123456789

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
EXHIBIT 32.8

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UCFH II FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCFH II Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 1, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tracey L.
Stockwell, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 11, 2007



By:

/s/ TRACEY L. STOCKWELLTracey L. Stockwell Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)




37
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Summer Infant, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2008 (the “Report”),as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, IJason Macari, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Sec.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 Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Jason Macari        |                   |
|-------------------------|------------------------|
| Jason Macari            | November 19, 2008 |
| Chief Executive Officer |                   |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Each of the undersignedhereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 ofthe United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of IHS Inc. (the “Company”),that, to his knowledge, the Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended August 31,2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in suchreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

This written statement isbeing furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to suchreport.  A signed original of thisstatement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Companyand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 
| Date:                                                | September 30, 2008 |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                                                 |                    |
| /s/ Jerre L. Stead                                   |                    |
| Jerre L. Stead                                       |                    |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                 |                    |
|                                                 |                    |
| /s/ Michael J. Sullivan                              |                    |
| Michael J. Sullivan                                  |                    |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |                    |

 

----
#### George DILL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State.

No. 2-94-012-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

March 23, 1995.

Hardy Burke, III, Denton, for appellant.

Bruce Issacks, Crim. Dist. Atty., Kathleen A. Walsh, Jason Jacoby, Asst. Dist. Attys., Denton, for State.

Before CAYCE, C.J., LIVINGSTON and RON CARR (Sitting by Assignment), JJ.

*508OPINION

LIVINGSTON, Justice.

The court found George Dill (“appellant”) guilty of violating a protective order. Punishment was assessed at ninety days in jail and a $300 fine. The punishment was probated for two years on the condition that appellant spend thirty days in jail and get counseling. In his sole point of error, appellant argues the evidence was insufficient to prove the act violating the protective order occurred in Denton County, Texas. We affirm because appellate procedure rule 80(d) requires us to presume venue was properly proved in the trial court.

On September 8, 1988, Shirley Dill sought a protective order against appellant which was granted by a Denton County district court. The protective order was signed September 22, 1988 and prohibited appellant from going within 100 feet of Shirley Dill’s residence at 1420 W. Main, # 1406, Lewis-ville, Texas. On April 6, 1989, Shirley Dill saw appellant circling her unit in the apartment complex approximately fifteen times in his white pick-up truck. She called the Lew-isville police.

The State argues appellant failed to preserve the issue of venue for appeal by not raising the issue in the trial court. Where an appellant does not challenge venue during trial in a criminal case, an appellate presumption of venue applies. *Whalon v. State,*725 S.W.2d 181, 188-89 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). Rule 80(d) of the appellate rules of procedure instructs, “The court of appeals shall presume that the venue was proved in the court below ... unless such matters were made an issue in the court below, or it otherwise affirmatively appears to the contrary from the record.” Tex.R.App.P. 80(d). Appellant in this case did not raise the issue of venue at trial, therefore, we are to presume venue was properly proved unless the record affirmatively shows the contrary. *See id.*

The phrase “or it otherwise affirmatively appears to the contrary from the record” has been construed to require “ ‘affirmative and conclusive proof in the record that the venue of prosecution was improperly laid.’ ” *O’Hara v. State,*837 S.W.2d 139, 143 (Tex. App.-Austin 1992, pet. ref'd) (citing *Holdridge v. State,*684 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex.App.-Waco 1984), *aff'd,*707 S.W.2d 18 (Tex.Crim.App.1986)). Not only does the record in this case fail to prove that venue was improper in Denton County, but appellant does not even allege that venue was improper in Denton County. Instead, appellant simply argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove venue was proper in Denton County.

Because appellant did not raise the issue of venue at trial and the record does not affirmatively and conclusively show venue was improper in Denton County, we presume venue was properly proved. Accordingly, appellant’s sole point of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 20
- 00376
- CV

Texas General Land Office and George P. Bush, named in his Official Capacity as Texas Lan d Commissioner, Appellants

v. City of Houston, Appellee

FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- GN
- 20
- 003520, THE HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

On March 30 , 202 1 , we extended the abate ment of this appeal to June 15 , 2021, at
the parties’ request

. We instructed the parties to file either a status report or motion to dismiss by
June 15

. The parties have filed their Joint Status Report and F if th Request for Extension of Abatement. In it, they represent that they have executed certain documents relating to settling their dispute and are waiting on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to approve A ction P lan A mendment 8. The parties represent that they anticipate that the approval
will be had by or before June 20 , 2021. The parties therefore seek an extension of the abatement of this appeal through and including Ju ly 15 , 2021, and an order “that the Parties file an updated status report or an agreed dismissal on or before ” that date.2 The Court grants the parties’ request for a f if th abatement extension and extends
the abatement through and including Ju ly 15 , 2021 , subject to any motion that may be made before that date to reinstate the appeal . The parties are ordered to file another status report, or a motion to dismiss, by Ju ly 15 , 2021

.

Before Chief Justice Byrn e , Justices Baker and Kelly
Abated
Filed: June 24 , 202 1
Exhibit 32.2

SOHU.COM INC.

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 Sohu.com Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carol Yu,
Co-President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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 of the Company as of December 31, 2006 and results of operations of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2006.



/s/ Carol YuCarol Yu, Co-President and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 8, 2007
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0664

_____________________________
E LISHA T HOMAS , J R

. ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective A ssistance of Appellate Counsel

— Original Jurisdiction

.

August 8, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and R OWE , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

___________________ __________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Elisha Thomas, Jr., pro se
, Petitioner

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
|   | (1) | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 15, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Lifen Zheng                                      |
|----------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Lifen Zheng                                          |
|                 |   | Principal Accounting OfficerLansdowne Security, Inc. |

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 134911 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

### Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134911 COA: 269690 Oakland CC: 2005-204854-FC MICHAEL WAYNE RUTHERFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 31, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1119 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 29, 2007

Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification

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

with Respect to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2007

of WorldSpace, Inc.

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), the undersigned officer of WorldSpace, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge, that:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Form 10-Q) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                                                                 
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: November 13, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ SRIDHAR GANESAN                                             
|                        |  |  |  | Sridhar Ganesan Executive Vice PresidentChief Financial Officer

The certification set forth above is being furnished as an Exhibit solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officers.