alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 7394

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAMON TAQUAN JACKSON, a/k/a DJ, a/k/a Daddy Frost , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. David C. Norton, District Judge. ( 2:16

- cr - 00054

- DCN

- 1 ; 2:21

- cv - 00788

- DCN )

Submitted : April 9, 2024 Decided: May 10, 2024

Before KING, THACKER , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curia m opinion

.
Elizabeth Anne Franklin

- Best , ELIZABETH FRANKLIN

- BEST, P.C. , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Greenville , South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7394 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Damon Taquan Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating tha t reasonable j urists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-7394 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Dan Hyer, Defendant.

No. CR-18-00422-005-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

The Court having reviewed the United States’ Motion to Continue Sentencing, there 

being no objection, and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Continue Sentencing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED continuing the Sentencing from September 12, 

2022, to a date to be determined following the conclusion of Defendant’s Appeal to the 

Ninth Circuit (Doc. 1445).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1462-1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virginia RIOJAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-20727.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Court-appointed counsel for Virginia Riojas has moved for leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Riojas has filed a response to the motion, contending that the district court erred in determining her sentence and that the evidence was insufficient to link her to the drug offense for which she was convicted.

*409Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Riojas’ response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Riojas waived the right to appeal her sentence, without exception. The sentencing issut® she asserts are waived. *See United States v. Melancon,*972 F.2d 566, 567 (5th Cir. 1992). Riojas’ knowing and voluntary guilty plea waived any argument that the evidence was insufficient to connect her with the offense. *See Nobles v. Beto,*439. F.2d 1001, 1002 n. 1 (5th Cir.1971).

Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

*

 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.
#### Pamela Marie GREENBERG, Respondent/E mployee, v. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Appellant/Employer.

No. 65339.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Oct. 18, 1994.

Cynthia M. Hennessey, Robert M. Evans, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for appellant.

James F. Hullverson, Jr., Hullverson Law Firm, St. Louis, for respondent.

*788Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Employer/insurer appeals from an award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming worker’s compensation benefits to employee for permanent partial disability as a result of a work-related accident.

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 of the Commission is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
#### PROPERTY EXCHANGE & SALES, INC., Appellant, v. Thomas GOCHBERG, et al., Respondents.

No. 66541.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 7, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 12, 1995.

Sylvan H. Robinson, St. Louis, for appellant.

Richard C. Bresnahan, Clayton, for respondents.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Property Exchange & Sales, Inc., appeals from an order entered in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis dismissing its action against respondents, Thomas Gochberg, et al., for wrongful failure to return security deposit. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the circuit court is based on findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. As we further find an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                      ----------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-38462, 333-71525, 333-61223, 333-63889, and
333-48797) and on Form S-8 (No. 333-43904, 333-40770, 333-40772, 333-37959 and
333-38137) of RCN Corporation and its Subsidiaries of our report dated March 2,
2001 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules,
which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCooper LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 29, 2001
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                            INDUS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


<Table>
<Caption>
   NAME OF SUBSIDIARY (AND DOING BUSINESS AS)               STATE OF INCORPORATION
   ------------------------------------------               ----------------------
<S>                                                         <C>
Indus Group North America, Inc.                             California
Indus UK, Inc.                                              California
Indus International, Ltd.                                   United Kingdom
Indus International, S.A.                                   France
Indus International Pty Ltd.                                Australia
Indus International Software Pte. Ltd.                      Singapore
Indus International Canada, Inc.                            Canada
Indus International Japan, Inc.                             Delaware
Indus APAC, Inc.                                            Delaware
Wishbone Systems, Inc.                                      New Jersey
Wishbone Systems GmbH                                       Germany
</Table>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
GREENLIGHT CAPITAL RE, LTD.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the ‘‘Form 10-Q’’) for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, of Greenlight Capital Re, Ltd. (the ‘‘Issuer’’).

I, Tim Courtis, the Principal Financial Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                              
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

| |      |                                                                                                                                                       
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

Dated: May 12, 2008





/s/ Tim CourtisTim Courtis


---
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

DAVID EISENBERG

DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C.

3550 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Arizona State Bar No. 017218

Telephone: 602.237.5076

Email: david@deisenbergplc.com

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

Andrew Padilla, 

Defendant.

CR-18-00422-06-PHX-DJH-DMF

DEFENDANT PADILLA’S MOTION

TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE OR 

VIDEO TELECONFERENCE

(Hearing Set for August 18, 2023 at

11:30 a.m.)

The Defendant Andrew Padilla, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits

the Defendant’s request that he be allowed to appear by telephone or video conference for the

Frye/Cooper hearing set for 11:30 a.m. The grounds for this request are that Mr. Padilla resides

in the Dallas, Texas area. The round trip fare to fly from Dallas to Phoenix and back is at least

$660 or more, and the hotel cost for one night would be approximately $200. These expenses

do not include ground transportation. This is a considerable outlay of funds for Mr. Padilla.

Wherefore, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court enter an order allowing him

to appear telephonically or by video teleconference at the Frye/Cooper hearing.

Respectfully submitted this 15th day of August, 2023.

/

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1702 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 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 2

s/ David Eisenberg

 

DAVID EISENBERG

Counsel for Defendant Andrew Padilla

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on August 15, 2023, I electronically transmitted the attached document to

the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic

Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance as counsel of

record. 

 s/ David Eisenberg 

 David Eisenberg

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1702 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO.  2-04-499-CR

MARY JOHNSON BELL A/K/A 						APPELLANT

MARY LOUISE BELL	

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

		MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant, Mary Johnson Bell a/k/a Mary Louise Johnson, appeals her conviction for fraudulent use or possession of identifying information.  In one issue, she complains that the trial court erred by failing to admit exculpatory evidence proffered by the defense.  We affirm.

	The issues of law presented by this case are well settled and the parties are familiar with the facts.

	During trial, appellant’s defensive theory was that estranged members of her family used her photograph without her permission to fraudulently obtain a Costco card in complainant’s name.  In support of this theory, appellant proffered exhibits consisting of fake drivers’ licenses seized from the home of Jessie Island a/k/a Jessie Allen, to whom appellant contends she is related.  The State objected to the admission of the exhibits on the grounds that they were irrelevant and the trial court sustained the objection.2

	Appellant contends that the trial court violated her due process right to present a defense by refusing to admit the exhibits which she contends are relevant to her defensive theory that her family members stole her identity and  used it to commit the crime.3 

	The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.4  Before evidence is admissible, it must be relevant under rule 401.5  Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”6  In determining whether evidence is relevant, we must look to the purpose for offering the evidence and whether there is a direct or logical connection between the offered evidence and the proposition sought to be proved.7

	In this case, there is no evidence linking the fake drivers’ licenses to appellant’s defensive theory that her relatives stole her identity and used it to create a fake Costco card in complainant’s name.  The fake drivers’ licenses do not make appellant’s identity as the person who committed the crime in question more probable or less probable than it would have been without the evidence.8  Thus, we cannot say that the trial court acted outside the zone of reasonable disagreement when it sustained the State’s relevancy objection.9 

	Therefore, we overrule appellant’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

								PER CURIAM

PANEL A:	CAYCE, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  May 4, 2006
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

________

MAXWELL | LAW PC

KC Maxwell (State Bar No. 214701)

 kcm@kcmaxlaw.com

David S. Wakukawa (State Bar No. 262546)

 dsw@kcmaxlaw.com

899 Ellis Street

San Francisco, California 94109

Telephone: (415) 494-8887

Facsimile: (415) 749-1694

Attorneys for Defendant DAN HYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

5. Dan Hyer,

 (Counts 1-68),

Defendants.

Case No. CR-18-00422-05-PHX-SPL (BSB)

MOTION TO APPEAR 

TELEPHONICALLY AT 

ARRAIGNMENT AS TO DEFENDANT 

DAN HYER

PROPOSED ORDER

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 250 Filed 08/07/18 Page 1 of 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

-1-

___

I, KC Maxwell, am the attorney for Defendant Dan Hyer in the above-captioned matter. I

maintain my regular office in San Francisco, California and was admitted pro hac vice in this 

Court on April 17, 2018. I respectfully move the court for an Order allowing me to appear 

telephonically at the Arraignment scheduled for Wednesday, August 8, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. in 

Courtroom 302 as at this moment in time it is impossible for me to physically appear at the 

arraignment.

Dated: August 7, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

MAXWELL LAW PC

By: /s/ KC Maxwell

K.C. Maxwell

Attorney for Defendant Dan Hyer

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Good cause having been shown, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: KC Maxwell, 

attorney for Defendant Dan Hyer, motion to appear telephonically at the Arraignment scheduled 

for August 8, 2018 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 302 is hereby granted.

DATE: 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 250 Filed 08/07/18 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 2 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 3 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 4 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 5 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 6 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 7 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 8 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 9 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 10 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 11 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 12 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 13 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 14 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 15 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 16 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 17 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 18 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 19 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 20 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 21 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 22 of 23
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-6 Filed 06/15/18 Page 23 of 23
Exhibit 32.2  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 China Multimedia, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/Wilson CheungWilson Cheung, Chief Financial Officer August 14, 2008
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Rhonda Elaine Neff, #029773

LAW OFFICES OF RHONDA NEFF, PLLC

3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2250

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

Telephone: (602) 704-2041

Facsimile: (602) 654-1233

E-mail: rhonda@rhondanefflaw.com 

Attorney for Defendant John Brunst

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

John Brunst,

 Defendant.

Case No. CR 18-0422-04-PHX-DJH

ORDER RE:

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR 

DEFENDANT JOHN BRUNST

The Court having reviewed and considered the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of 

Record for Defendant John Brunst, and for good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED granting the motion and withdrawing Rhonda Elaine Neff as 

attorney of record in this matter. 

The Court finds excludable delay under Title 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) from 

__________ to _____________.

Dated this _____ day of __________, 2022.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1473-1 Filed 10/17/22 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          54,326
<SECURITIES>                                    57,410
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,861
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,224
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 193,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,596
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                     176,187
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   193,911
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,912
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               105,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (93,370)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,425
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (95,795)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (95,795)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (19.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (19.29)
        

</TABLE>
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 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Dan Hyer, 

 Defendant. 

No. CR-18-00422-5-PHX-SMB (BSB)

ORDER 

The Court having reviewed the Government’s Unopposed Motion to Continue 

Defendant’s Sentencing Hearing (Doc. 518 ), and good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED granting the Government’s Unopposed Motion to Continue 

Defendant’s Sentencing Hearing. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED continuing the Sentencing from May 20, 2019, to 

July 29, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. 

 Dated this 11th day of April, 2019. 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 520 Filed 04/11/19 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350)









In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Card Activation Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael De La Garza, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      February 17, 2009
            
            By:
      /s/ Michael De La GarzaMichael
      De La GarzaChairman,
      President Chief Executive Officer (Principle Executive
      Officer)