alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-22-00308-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

LIOVARDO AGUILERA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 156th District Court

of Live Oak County, Texas.

O R D E R

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Liovardo Aguilera, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his 

conviction in trial court cause number LCR110052. The trial court’s certification of the 

defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an 

appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of 

appeal is not made a part of the record. Id. R. 25.2(d); see id. R. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. The 
2

purpose of the certification requirement is to efficiently sort appealable cases from nonappealable cases so that appealable cases can “move through the system unhindered 

while eliminating, at an early stage, the time and expense associated with nonappealable cases.” Greenwell v. Ct. of Apps. for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 159 S.W.3d 

645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 912 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Within thirty days of date of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, Hon. 

Natalie Ganem, is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification. If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant 

has a right to appeal, counsel is further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within 

thirty days of this notice, identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant 

has a right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4; Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 

614–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, 119 S.W.3d 838, 841 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (certification form provided in appendix to 

appellate rules may be modified to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under 

circumstances not addressed by the form). The motion must include an analysis of the 

applicable case law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by 

the record. See Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 614–15; cf. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 

316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that 

recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of 

record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting 
3

appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1,

10.2.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on

the 13th day of July 2022.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135480 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135480 

 COA: 272340 
 Wayne CC: 06-004656-01

MARIO JAY ROYAL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 15, 2007 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0317 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

March 24, 2008 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3945 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3945

To require the Federal Communications Commission to promote additional 
sharing of broadcasting tower facilities to reduce the impact on local 
                     communities of station towers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 1996

 Mr. Taylor of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Federal Communications Commission to promote additional 
sharing of broadcasting tower facilities to reduce the impact on local 
                     communities of station towers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FCC PROCEEDING REQUIRED.

    The Federal Communications Commission shall initiate a proceeding 
to propose revisions to its regulations to reduce the impact on local 
communities of broadcasting towers by requiring, to the extent 
technically feasible, sharing of broadcasting towers by television and 
radio station licensees.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 416 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 416

                 For the relief of Sara Lou Hendricks.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Jacobs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 For the relief of Sara Lou Hendricks.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF POSTAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT PROCEEDS.

    The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the proceeds of the postal savings 
account of the late Harriet C. McKee (account number 442), and interest 
calculated under section 4, to Sara Lou Hendricks, the daughter and 
heir of Harriet C. McKee.

SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.

    The payment made pursuant to section 1 shall be in full 
satisfaction of all claims Sara Lou Hendricks may have against the 
United States, or any agent or agency of the United States, relating to 
the postal savings account described in section 1.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

    It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 percent of the 
payment required by section 1 to be paid to or received by any agent or 
attorney for any service rendered in connection with the payment 
required by section 1. Any person who violates this section shall be 
guilty of an infraction and shall be subject to a fine in the amount 
provided in title 18, United States Code.

SEC. 4. CALCULATION OF INTEREST.

    The interest on the account referred to in section 1 shall equal 
the sum of--
            (1) the interest that would have been payable on the 
        account for the period beginning on the day that the account 
        was opened and ending on the last day that the proceeds of 
        postal savings accounts could be claimed under the Postal 
        Savings System Statute of Limitations Act (98 Stat. 402), if 
        the account had been claimed under the Postal Savings System 
        Statute of Limitations Act (98 Stat. 402); and
            (2) interest calculated according to the formula in section 
        2516(b) of title 28, United States Code, for the period 
        beginning on the 1st day after the end of the period described 
        in paragraph (1) and ending on the day that the payment 
        required by section 1 is made.

                                 <all>
```
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 Classic Costume Company, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E.
      Todd
      Owens, Chief Executive Officer and 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.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Classic Costume Company, Inc. and will be retained by Classic Costume Company,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





August
                15, 2007
            /s/E.
                Todd OwensE.
                Todd OwensChief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Pursuant to U.S.C.Section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of theundersigned officers of Arcade Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), does herebycertify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: August 12,  2008 |   | /s/ Jonathan Furer      |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                         |   | Jonathan Furer          |
|                         |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                         |   |                    |
|                         |   | /s/ John Chapman        |
|                         |   | John Chapman            |
|                         |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL ANTHONY ACINELLI, Jr.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

BLACKMON, Lt. Supervisor of Work

Assignments, individual capacity and

official capacity,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 15

- 56955

D.C. No. 5:13

- cv

- 00381

- AB

- PLA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted J anuary 18 , 2017 **

B efore: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Samuel Anthony Acinelli, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se

from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs arising from his work

* 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

JAN 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 56955

assignment . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

.

Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004)

. We affirm.

The district court properly granted s ummary judgment because Acinelli

failed to raise a g enuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Lt.

Blackmon was deliberately indifferent to Acinelli’s health by not removing

Acinelli from his work assignment

. See id. at 1057 (a pris on official acts with

deliberate indifference only if he or sh e knows of and disregards an excessive risk

to the prisoner’s health) ; Berry v. Bunnell , 39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th Cir. 1994)

( “[T]he Eighth Amendment does not apply [ to prison labor conditions] unless

prisoners are compelled to perform physical labor which is beyond their strength,

endangers their lives or health, or causes undue pain .” ).

AFFIRMED.
#### Francesca SANTAMARIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Genevieve MOSBLECH, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 68538.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Feb. 6, 1996.

Jeffrey S. Singer, Allan R. Belliveau, Fox, Goldblatt & Singer, St. Louis, for appellant.

Michael P. Corrigan, Wuestling, James & Devoto, St. Louis, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Francesca Santamaría appeals from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Genevieve Mosblech finding Francesca Santamaría 100% comparatively at fault for the injuries suffered by her during an automobile-to-bicycle accident. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of evidence; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-11097

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDGAR A. LOCKETT, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-12-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury found Edgar A. Lockett, Jr., guilty of six counts of income tax 

evasion. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for release on bond 

pending sentencing. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motion 

on the ground that Lockett failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that 

he would not be a flight risk and danger to the community if released pending 

sentencing.

* 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

December 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-11097 Document: 00512474502 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
No. 13-11097

A convicted defendant does not have a constitutional right to bail. 

United States v. Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 2006). A defendant “who has 

been found guilty of an offense and who is awaiting imposition . . . of sentence” 

shall be detained pending sentencing “unless the judicial officer finds by clear 

and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to 

the safety of any other person or the community if released.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3143(a)(1).

Lockett does not dispute the district court’s factual findings on the issues 

of flight risk and danger to the community. Instead, he argues that the district 

court violated his rights to due process and confrontation when it allowed, over 

his objections, the introduction of hearsay evidence at the hearing on his 

motion for release on bond pending sentencing. However, even if we do not 

consider the few challenged instances of hearsay testimony, the totality of the 

evidence adduced at the bond hearing clearly supports the district court’s 

conclusion that Lockett has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that 

he is not a flight risk or a danger to the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1). 

Lockett’s challenge fails. 

AFFIRMED. Lockett’s motion for bond pending judgment is DENIED.

2

 Case: 13-11097 Document: 00512474502 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of YaFarm Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hong Zhao, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Dated:           November 12, 2010
/s/ Hong ZhaoBy:  Hong ZhaoIts:  Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2 

 

CERTIFICATIONS 

 

I, Ranell Jacobson, certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Union Security Life Insurance Company of New York; 

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

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

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

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

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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

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

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

 

Date: March 10, 2006
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 Endeavor Explorations Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter
Stunder, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a member of the
Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:






(1)
        The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) 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.











/s/
Walter Stunder


Walter
Stunder


Chief
Executive Officer






March 17,
2008









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 Endeavor Explorations Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Belkis
Jimenez Rivero, Chief Financial Officer of the Company and a member of the Board
of Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:






(1)
        The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and






(2)
        The information contained in the Report fairly represents, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company.








/s/
Belkis Jimenez Rivero


Belkis
Jimenez Rivero


Chief
Financial Officer






March 17,
2008
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 479

To repeal the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Public Law 101–549).

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 11, 1995

Mr. DELAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Commerce

A BILL

To repeal the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Public

Law 101–549).

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF

4 1990.

5 Public Law 101–549 is hereby repealed.

Æ