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

- 1 8

- 0000 612

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

STATE OF H AWAI  I , Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v s .
KRISTINE L.T. MICHELS , Petitioner/ Defendant

- Appellant

.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 1 8

- 0000 612 ; C ASE

. NO. 3 DTA

- 1 8

- 00638 )

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, and Eddins, JJ. , Circuit Judge Wong, in place of Nakayama, J., recused, and Circuit Judge Chang , assigned by reason of vacancy ) It appearing that the judgment on appeal in the above

referenced matter not having been filed by the Intermediate Court of Appeals at the time the application for writ of certiorari was filed, see Hawai  i Revised Statutes § 602

- 59(a) (201 7 ); see also Hawai  i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 36(b)(1) (201 6 ), Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-18-0000612 19-APR-2023 11:36 AM Dkt. 9 ODSAC2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petit i oner/Defendant

Appellant ’s application for writ of certiorari, filed April 14
202 3 , is dismissed without prej udice to re

- filing the application pursuant to HRAP Rule 40.1(a) (20 20 ) (“The application shall be filed within thirty days after the filing of the intermediate court of appeals’ judgment on appeal or dismissal order, unless the time for filing the applica tion is extended in accordance with this rule.”). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, April 19 , 2023. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Todd W. Eddins /s/ Paul B.K. Wong /s/ Gary W.B. Chang
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Anthony YOUNG, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 63713.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Jan. 31, 1995.

Raymund J. Capelovitch, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., and REINHARD and CARL R. GAERTNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged and convicted of second degree robbery. The trial court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to fifteen years.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. 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 is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
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 

MICHAEL BAILEY 

United States Attorney 

ANNA WRIGHT

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

NATHANIEL J. WALTERS 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

State Bar No.: 029708 

405 West Congress, Suite 4800 

Tucson, Arizona 85701-5040 

Telephone: (520) 620-7300 

E-mail: anna.wright@usdoj.gov 

 nathaniel.walters@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

 Defendant.

18-CR-223-TUC-RCC (DTF) 

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL TO SUSANNAH BROWN

The United States of America, by and through its attorneys undersigned, hereby 

submits this motion to appoint counsel to Susannah Brown. 

Susannah Brown testified as a witness for the defendant in the first trial in this 

matter. TR 6/4/19 at 124-194. As the government argued in closing, her testimony 

demonstrated that she conspired with the defendant to harbor two illegal aliens at the Barn 

from January 14 to January, 17, 2017. See TR 6/7/19 at 7-8, 22-24, 26. As such, she may 

further expose herself to criminal liability if she testifies at the retrial. Counsel for the 

defendant recently informed the government that, “given the accusations [the government] 

has made against [Ms. Brown], [they] fully expect[ ] her to invoke her Fifth Amendment 

rights at retrial.” Therefore, in an abundance of caution, the government believes Ms. 
- 2 - 

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 

Brown should be appointed counsel to advise her regarding her potential testimony at the 

retrial. 

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of September, 2019. 

 

 MICHAEL BAILEY 

United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

 /s/ Anna R. Wright & Nathaniel J. Walters

 ANNA WRIGHT &

 NATHANIEL J. WALTERS 

 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

Copy of the foregoing served electronically or by 

other means this 30th day of September, 2019 to: 

All ECF Participants
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 Quarterly Report of Sunovia Energy Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carl L.
Smith, III, Chief Executive Officer and I, Matthew Veal, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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) of the
Securities and 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.




June 
      15, 2009
              /s/Carl
      L. Smith, IIICarl
      L. Smith, IIIChief
      Executive Officer




June
      15, 2009
              /s/Matthew
      VealMatthew
      VealChief
      Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Sunovia Energy Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Sunovia Energy
Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Henry Andrews, President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of TransAct Energy Corp., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); 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: November 4, 2009    /s/ Henry Andrews Henry Andrews President and Chief Executive Officer Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to TransAct Energy Corp. and will be retained by TransAct Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

----

|   | (1) | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB 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      Registrant. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      Richard N. Jeffs    |   |   |   |   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Richard      N. Jeffs        |   |   |   |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

NOVEMBER 16, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-11261

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-80062-CR-DTKH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CASSANDRA LASTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(November 16, 2009)

Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

David J. Joffe, appointed counsel for Cassandra Laster 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 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 withdraw is GRANTED, and Laster’s convictions and

sentences are AFFIRMED.

2
Motion Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 31, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00508-CR

YOLANDA MARIE WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1315703

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

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated assault of a family member. 

On May 22, 2012, after a pre-sentence investigation and hearing, the trial court 

sentenced appellant to confinement for five years in the Institutional Division of 

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely notice of 

appeal.
2

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal 

is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional 

evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to 

be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 

sixty days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error 

in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders

brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds 

for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Boyce and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
* 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

October 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40390

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE HIPOLITO GONZALEZ-OROZCO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:03-CR-922-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Hipolito

Gonzalez-Orozco concedes that the arguments raised are foreclosed

by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve them for further

review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance in lieu

of filing an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7104

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

WARREN ANDREW BLAKE, JR., 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior 

District Judge. (7:04-cr-00124-jct-1) 

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 9, 2009 

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Fay Frances Spence, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Warren Andrew Blake, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order granting his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United 

States v. Blake, No. 7:04-cr-00124-jct-1 (W.D. Va. June 25, 

2008). See United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009). 

We deny Blake’s motion to consolidate and appoint counsel. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1

             CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT
                       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 Rohat  Resources,  Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"),  on Form 10Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2009
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  the  undersigned,  the Chief  Executive  Officer,  hereby  certifies
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Sec.  1350 as adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the undersigned's knowledge:

     (1)  the  Report  of the  Company  filed  today  fully  complies  with  the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or (15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934, as amended; and

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



Date: March 12, 2009                By: /s/ John P. Hynes III
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                    Name:  John P. Hynes III
                                    Title: Chief Executive Officer and President
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 December 5, 2018

a1128

Order 

Clerk

December 5, 2018

157711-2

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 157711-2

COA: 342570; 342574

Tuscola CC: 16-013763-FH;

AARON DANIEL SPENCER, 17-013985-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 12, 2018 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive 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 periodic report of NovaRay Medical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Marc C. Whyte,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: November 12, 2009



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Marc C. Whyte      
|Marc C. Whyte          
|Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 of AmREIT Monthly Income &
Growth Fund IV, L.P. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, H. Kerr Taylor, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in the capacity as an officer of the General
Partner of the Company, that, to my knowledge:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 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.

|                    |       |  |                                                                                                                                                               
|------------------- | ----- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May
 15, 2009 | By:   |  | /s/ H. Kerr
 Taylor                                                                                                                                           
|                    | Name: |  | H. Kerr
 Taylor                                                                                                                                               
|                    | Title |  | President
 and Chief Executive Officer of AmREIT Monthly Income & Growth IV
 Corporation, the General Partner of AmREIT Monthly Income & Growth Fund
 IV, L.P.



---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 545 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 545

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 16, 2009.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2346) making 
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and 
for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered 
as read.
    Sec. 2.  The Chair may postpone further consideration of the conference 
report to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Sandra C. SWIFT (Wallman) and Krysty Lynn Baker, by her next friend, Sandra C. Swift (Wallman), Movants-Appellants, v. Howard Todd BAKER, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 19200.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

July 6, 1994.

Donald Rhodes, Bloomfield, for movants-appellants.

Jeffrey P. Dix, Jackson, for respondent-respondent.

PREWITT, Judge.

The mother of a minor child appeals from the trial court’s order modifying custody and support. She contends that the trial court erred in awarding respondent father sole legal custody and primary physical custody.

The statement of facts in appellants’ brief contains no citations to testimony or other evidence. It refers only to the pleadings and the court’s orders. A statement of facts, which consists of nothing more than procedural history, fails to provide an understanding of the case and does not comply with Rule 84.04(c). *Murray v. Missouri Real Estate Com’n,*858 S.W.2d 238, 239 (Mo.App.1993); *Carrier v. City of Springfield,*852 S.W.2d 196, 198 (Mo.App.1993).

Failing to substantially comply with Rule 84.04(c) preserves nothing for appellate review. *Whalen v. College of the Ozarks,*851 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Mo.App.1993); *Wehmeyer v. Bassett Realty, Inc.,*840 S.W.2d 290, 291 (Mo.App.1992).

Because the welfare of a child is involved we have gratuitously examined the record. Based upon our limited review, see Rule 73.01(c); *In re Marriage of Lafferty,*788 S.W.2d 359, 361 (Mo.App.1990), there is no *736reversible error, plain, Rule 84.18(e), or otherwise.

The judgment is affirmed.

GARRISON and CROW, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00520-CR

Steven Mitchell GARY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR2945

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 13, 2014

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 

Steven Mitchell Gary filed a notice of appeal on July 18, 2014. The notice states Gary 

desires to appeal the indictment against him. The courts of appeal have jurisdiction of an appeal 

by a criminal defendant only after a conviction or when an appeal is specifically authorized by 

statute. Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 622, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); see Ragston v. 

State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991). There is no statute authorizing a criminal defendant to appeal an indictment.
04-14-00520-CR

On July 30, 2014, we ordered Gary to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction. Gary filed a response in which he complains there are irregularities in the 

indictment and that he is receiving ineffective assistance of counsel. Neither of these matters may 

be directly appealed before conviction. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish

- 2 -