alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No. 03-80504 (08-51011)

v. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

KYLE DRESBACH,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER

For the reasons stated on the record on October 27, 2008, Defendant’s Motion for

Discovery [Docket #299] is DENIED.

The transcript of the proceedings of October 27, 2008 shall be SEALED.

SO ORDERED.

S/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: October 28, 2008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served on the attorneys

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on October 28, 2008.

S/Gina Wilson 

Judicial Assistant
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00678- CV

Vincent Salvo and Kim Tann er, P etitioner s

v. P acese tte r Hom es, LLC and La Ventana Ranch Ow ners Association, Inc., Respondents

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F H AY S CO UNTY, 428 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 15- 2512 , H ONO RAB LE WI LLIAM R. H ENRY, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Petitioners Vincent Salvo and Kim Tanne r have filed a motion t o d i s m iss their petition for permissive appea l and alternativ e p eti tion for writ of mandamus. I n their motion, petitioners repr esent that the parties have settled the underly ing dispute and ag ree to the dismiss al. We g rant the motion and dismiss the petition for permissive appea l and alternative petition for writ of mandamus. 1

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pury ear and Pember

ton Filed: January

6, 2017
See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a) (1). We dismiss as moot responde nt L a Ventana Ranch Owner s 1 Association, I nc.’s motion to dismi ss petitioners’ petition for pe rmissive appea l.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 045 6 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NEIL LYNN NUNES,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 31 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

June 20 2023

06/20/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0456
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6630

LEVONE JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN, Commissioner of

Corrections; RONALD HUTCHINSON, MHC Warden;

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; THE UNIVERSITY OF

MARYLAND HOSPITAL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA00-3595-PJM)

Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Levone Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, Sharon Stanley Street, Assistant Attorney General,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Levone Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order that

granted summary judgment to William Sondervan and Ronald

Hutchinson, and dismissed all claims against Prison Health Services

and the University of Maryland Hospital. We dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction because Jones’ notice of appeal was not timely

filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is

“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April

24, 2001. Jones’ notice of appeal was filed on April 16, 2002.

Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain

an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the

appeal. We deny Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel and a

medical expert witness. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
2:08-cv-14524-PDB-MKM Doc # 34 Filed 08/08/11 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 1085
2:08-cv-14524-PDB-MKM Doc # 34 Filed 08/08/11 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 1086
2:08-cv-14524-PDB-MKM Doc # 34 Filed 08/08/11 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 1087
2:08-cv-14524-PDB-MKM Doc # 34 Filed 08/08/11 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 1088
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

R.Q. WARD, J.R. MCFARLANE, G.G. GERDING

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CORTEZ COUNCIL

PRIVATE (E-1), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201300368

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 14 June 2013.

Military Judge: LtCol Leon Francis, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, 3d Assault 

Amphibian Battalion, 1st Marine Division (REIN), Camp 

Pendleton, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: Maj D.P. Harvey, 

USMC.

For Appellant: CAPT Bree Ermentrout, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

30 January 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Susan M. Brnovich Date: July 16, 2021 

USA v. Lacey et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

Defendant-1: Michael Lacey, Released – Not Present (Presence waived)

Attorney for Defendant (1): Paul Cambria, Jr. and Erin McCampbell Paris, Retained

Defendant-2: James Larkin, Released – Not Present (Presence waived)

Attorney for Defendant (2): Thomas Bienert, Jr., Retained

Defendant-3: Scott Spear, Released-Present

Attorney for Defendant (3): Bruce Feder, Retained 

Defendant-4: John Brunst, Released-Present 

Attorney for Defendant (4): Gopi Panchapakesan, Retained

Defendant-6: Andrew Padilla, Released- Not Present (Presence waived)

Attorney for Defendant (6): David Eisenberg, CJA Appointment

Defendant-7: Joye Vaught, Released - Present

Attorney for Defendant (7): Joy Bertrand, CJA Appointment

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE:

All parties present are appearing by video. The responses to the juror questionnaires are reviewed with 

counsel and 224 jurors are stricken for cause. The parties are directed to email the Court their 

proposed strikes for cause, including any objections, of the remaining jurors. 

IT IS ORDERED continuing the Final Pretrial Conference to discuss any remaining strikes for cause 

and trial procedures for 8/9/2021 at 9:00 a.m to be held by Zoom. 

LATER: In order to determine if additional jurors should be ordered, the parties are directed to send 

their proposed strikes for cause by the end of day of July 21, 2021.

Court Reporter Christine Coaly

Deputy Clerk Elaine Garcia

FPTC: 2 hrs 52 mins

Start: 9:02 PM 

Stop: 11:54 PM

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Andrew Stone, Peter Kozinets, Margaret Perlmeter, Kevin Rapp and 

Daniel Boyle

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1180 Filed 07/16/21 Page 1 of 1
#### John PORTEE, Appellant, v. CONTRACT TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant, Division of Employment Security, Respondent.

No. WD 51917.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 30, 1996.

*642Samuel I. McHenry, Kansas City, for appellant.

Sharon Ann Willis, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before EDWIN H. SMITH, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from decision of Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming the decision of the Division of Employment Security which denied appellant certain unemployment compensation benefits.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Scott Spear, et al., 

Defendant. 

No. CR-18-0422-03-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 

 The Court has considered Defendant Scott Spear’s unopposed Motion to Modify 

Release Conditions (Doc. 231), and good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED the motion is GRANTED. Defendant Spear’s release 

conditions are modified s follows: 

 1. Defendant Spear may consume alcohol, not to excess; and 

 2. Defendant Spear is no longer required to participate in mental health 

counseling. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other prior conditions of release remain in 

full force and effect. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that excludable delay under Title 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)______ will commence on _______for a total of ______days. 

 Dated this 25th day of July, 2018. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 236 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit I 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-9 Filed 06/14/18 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-9 Filed 06/14/18 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-9 Filed 06/14/18 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-9 Filed 06/14/18 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-9 Filed 06/14/18 Page 5 of 5
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, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 The Court has considered the United States’ Motion to Extend Time to file its 

Reply to Defendants’ Opposition (Doc. 229), and good cause showing, 

IT IS ORDERED the motion is GRANTED. The deadline for the United States 

to file a reply to Defendants’ opposition to motion to resolve privilege issues and crossmotion to obtain discovery and address privilege issues (Doc. 226) is extended to August 

10, 2018. 

 The Court finds excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) ____ from ____ to 

____. 

 Dated this 25th day of July, 2018. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 233 Filed 07/25/18 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT15 
EXHIBIT 15 

Objectionable Fees 

Joshua Kay Time Entries 

Date Attorney Time Fee 

1/6/2009 Kay .17 25.50

1/6/2009 Kay 2.42 363.00

6/16/2009 Kay .50 75.00

9/4/2009 Kay 1.00 150.00

9/21/2009 Kay .17 25.50

9/23/2009 Kay .17 25.50

10/13/2009 Kay .10 15.00

10/19/2009 Kay .08 12.00

10/19/2009 Kay 4.08 612.00

11/3/2009 Kay .42 63.00

11/5/2009 Kay .42 63.00

11/5/2009 Kay .17 25.50

11/13/2009 Kay .17 25.50

11/13/2009 Kay .17 25.50

Grand Total 10.04 $1,506.00

264311
Order entered August 21, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 12 - 01488 - CR No. 05 - 12 - 01489 - CR JUAN RAMON HERNANDEZ , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F12 - 19054 - H , F12 - 19055 - H



### O RDER The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommend ations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s pres ence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
NO. 12-21-00019-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JOHN BARNETT, 

APPELLANT

V.

THOMAS C. BRIGHT, JAMES 

MCANDREW, CHARLES DICKSON, J. 

LEONARD DECARLO, ROBERT CLAY 

WILLIAMS AND UROLOGY TYLER, 

P.A.,

APPELLEES

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant, John Barnett, filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. In the motion, 

Barnett states that the parties settled this case. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted, 

and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a).

Opinion delivered June 30, 2021.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 30, 2021

NO. 12-21-00019-CV

JOHN BARNETT,

Appellant

V.

THOMAS C. BRIGHT, JAMES MCANDREW, CHARLES DICKSON, J. LEONARD 

DECARLO, ROBERT CLAY WILLIAMS AND UROLOGY TYLER, P.A.,

Appellees

Appeal from the County Court at Law

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 71987)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the unopposed motion of the Appellant 

to dismiss the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal 

be dismissed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
INDEX OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit A Notice of Motion and Motion to Vacate or Modify 

Seizure Warrants

Exhibit B Declarations Filed in Support of the Motion to Vacate 

or Modify Seizure Warrants

Exhibit C Request for Judicial Notice (without exhibits)

Exhibit D Notice of Related Cases

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 287 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 1
#### Gerald L. FRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 65288.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 6, 1994.

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., F. Martin Dajani, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Gerald L. Fry, appeals from the Lincoln County Circuit Court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. 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 not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
2:08-cv-14266-AC-DAS Doc # 256 Filed 05/29/14 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 7972
2:08-cv-14266-AC-DAS Doc # 256 Filed 05/29/14 Pg 2 of 13 Pg ID 7973
2:08-cv-14266-AC-DAS Doc # 256 Filed 05/29/14 Pg 3 of 13 Pg ID 7974
2:08-cv-14266-AC-DAS Doc # 256 Filed 05/29/14 Pg 4 of 13 Pg ID 7975
2:08-cv-14266-AC-DAS Doc # 256 Filed 05/29/14 Pg 5 of 13 Pg ID 7976
2:08-cv-14266-AC-DAS Doc # 256 Filed 05/29/14 Pg 6 of 13 Pg ID 7977
2:08-cv-14266-AC-DAS Doc # 256 Filed 05/29/14 Pg 7 of 13 Pg ID 7978
2:08-cv-14266-AC-DAS Doc # 256 Filed 05/29/14 Pg 8 of 13 Pg ID 7979
2:08-cv-14266-AC-DAS Doc # 256 Filed 05/29/14 Pg 9 of 13 Pg ID 7980
2:08-cv-14266-AC-DAS Doc # 256 Filed 05/29/14 Pg 10 of 13 Pg ID 7981
2:08-cv-14266-AC-DAS Doc # 256 Filed 05/29/14 Pg 11 of 13 Pg ID 7982
2:08-cv-14266-AC-DAS Doc # 256 Filed 05/29/14 Pg 12 of 13 Pg ID 7983
2:08-cv-14266-AC-DAS Doc # 256 Filed 05/29/14 Pg 13 of 13 Pg ID 7984
Exhibit 32.2

JMP GROUP INC.

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 periodic report of JMP Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas B. Kilian, Chief Financial 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.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 7, 2009

/s/ Thomas B. KilianThomas B. KilianChief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

COMERICA BANK, 

Plaintiff(s),

v.

DEVONSHIRE PLAZA, LLC, et al,

Defendant(s).

 /

Case No. 08-14210

Hon. Avern Cohn

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY FEES

Before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Attorney Fees. A response

has not been filed. The Court being fully advised in the premises,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2009 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record

on this date, November 3, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:08-cv-14210-AC-RSW Doc # 62 Filed 11/03/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 357
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 1 of 17 Pg ID 2940
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 2 of 17 Pg ID 2941
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 3 of 17 Pg ID 2942
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 4 of 17 Pg ID 2943
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 5 of 17 Pg ID 2944
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 6 of 17 Pg ID 2945
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 7 of 17 Pg ID 2946
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 8 of 17 Pg ID 2947
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 9 of 17 Pg ID 2948
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 10 of 17 Pg ID 2949
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 11 of 17 Pg ID 2950
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 12 of 17 Pg ID 2951
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 13 of 17 Pg ID 2952
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 14 of 17 Pg ID 2953
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 15 of 17 Pg ID 2954
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 16 of 17 Pg ID 2955
2:08-cv-14344-PDB-MKM Doc # 204 Filed 04/04/12 Pg 17 of 17 Pg ID 2956
1

Filed 8/14/15 P. v. Allen CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SHAQUON MICHAEL ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant. C078309

(Super. Ct. No. 14F00138)

Appointed counsel for defendant Shaquon Michael Allen asked this court

to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.

( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result

in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

I

On March 27, 2014, defendant pleaded no contest to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)

and admitted personally using a firearm during the commission of his crime ( Pen. Code,

§ 12022.5). The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to an aggregate term2

of seven years in state prison

, imposed various fines and fees

, and awarded defendant

125 days of presentence credit.

On December 11 , 2014, defendant filed in the trial court a Penal Code

section 1170.18 petition for redesignation of his sentence pursuant to Proposition 47.

The trial court denied the petition, ruling that defendant ’ s current conviction for second

deg ree robbery was not eligible for re designation.

II

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and

asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable

issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised

by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing

the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from

defendant.

Having undertaken an exa mination of the entire record, we find no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

MAURO , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

DUARTE , J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7083

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CURTIS L. HAYES, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:94-cr-00180-1)

Submitted: October 23, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008

Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis L. Hayes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Curtis L. Hayes, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order denying reconsideration of its order denying Hayes’ motion

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

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hayes

,
No. 3:94-cr-00180-1 (S.D. W. Va. May 21, 2008). 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