alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JUAN PASO-ANGELES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10353

D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00254-RCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding** 

Submitted June 12, 2014*** 

Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Juan Paso-Angeles appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in

FILED

JUN 18 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable John C. Coughenour, Senior United States District

Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. 

 *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Paso-Angeles’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds

for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have

provided Paso-Angeles the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro

se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Paso-Angeles has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

2 13-10353
Filed 11/22/22 In re Brown CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re

HERBERT ANDRE BROWN, 

On Habeas Corpus.

F084869

(Fresno Super. Ct. No. 11CRSP680459)

OPINION

THE COURT*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Central California Appellate Program and Siena Kautz for Petitioner.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, and Max Feinstat, Deputy Attorney General, for 

Respondent.

-ooOooPetitioner seeks permission to file a belated appeal by way of a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. The Attorney General concedes petitioner has made a prima facie 

showing for relief. Accordingly, we grant the request.

The Fresno County Superior Court determined petitioner was a sexually violent 

predator pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1section 6600 and ordered him 

committed to Coalinga State Hospital an indeterminate term on May 2, 2022. Believing 

* Before Detjen, A.P.J., Peña, J., and DeSantos, J.

1 Further references are to the Welfare and Intuitions Code.
2

the First District Appellate Project (FDAP) was the appropriate organization to assist, 

petitioner sent the FDAP a letter on June14, 2022, requesting help to appeal from the 

commitment order. FDAP received the letter on June 24, 2022, but admittedly did not 

review it until July 11, 2022, eleven days after the jurisdictional 60-day deadline to file a 

notice of appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a).) Several weeks later, FDAP 

forwarded petitioner’s correspondence to the Central California Appellate Program, the 

appropriate appellate project, who assisted petitioner to seek relief to file a belated appeal 

with the current petition. 

This court granted the Attorney General leave to respond to the petition. The 

Attorney General responded on October 13, 2022, indicating it did not oppose 

petitioner’s request to file a belated appeal from the May 2, 2022, commitment order.

In light of petitioner’s factual allegations and the Attorney General’s concession, 

petitioner is granted relief to file a belated appeal.

DISPOSITION

Petitioner is granted leave to cause a notice of appeal to be filed on or before 

60 days from the date of this opinion in Fresno County Superior Court action 

No. 11CRSP680459.

Let a writ of habeas corpus issue directing the Clerk of the Superior Court for 

Fresno County to file said request in its action No. 11CRSP680459, to treat it as timely 

filed, and to proceed with the preparation of the record on appeal in accordance with the 

applicable rules of the California Rules of Court if the clerk of that court receives a notice 

of appeal from petitioner on or before 60 days of the date of this opinion.

This opinion is final forthwith.
|   | (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 periodsindicated. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      November 15, 2010 | /s/      Qingqing Wu              |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                         | Qingqing      Wu                  |
|                         | Chief      Executive Officer      |
|                         | (Principal      ExecutiveOfficer) |

----
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 21.1


                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                              AS OF MARCH 30, 2001

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                     STATE OR JURISDICTION
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                   OF INCORPORATION           % OF OWNERSHIP
------------------                                   ----------------           --------------
<S>                                                  <C>                        <C>
Inverness Medical Limited                            Scotland (U.K.)            100% of common stock (1)
Inverness Medical, Inc. ("IMI")                      State of Delaware          100%
Can-Am Care Corporation                              State of New York          100% (sub of IMI)
Inverness Medical Canada Inc.                        Canada                     100% (sub of IMI)
Cambridge Diagnostics Ireland Ltd.                   Ireland                    100%
Terrier Acquisition Corp. ("Terrier")                State of Delaware          100%
Integ Incorporated                                   State of Minnesota         100% (sub of Terrier)
Inverness Medical Europe GmbH (2)                    Germany                    100%
Selfcare Development Verwaltungsgesellschaft GmbH    Germany                    100% (sub of IM Europe GmbH)
Selfcare Development GmbH & Co. KG                   Germany                     70% (sub of IM Europe GmbH)
Inverness Medical Benelux Bvba (3)                   Belgium                    100% (sub of IM Europe GmbH)
Selfcare Europe Ltd                                  England (U.K.)             100% (no operations)
Cambridge Affiliate Corporation                      State of Delaware           49%
Selfhelp Israel, Ltd.                                Israel                     100% (no operations)
Orgenics, Ltd. (4)                                   Israel                     100% (direct & indirect)
Orgenics International Holdings B.V.                 The Netherlands            100% (5)
Selfcare Technology, Inc.                            State of Delaware          100% (6)
Selfcare Pty Limited                                 Australia                  100% (no operations)
</TABLE>


NOTE: Each subsidiary does business under its own name, as listed above.

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

(1) preferred stock owned by Inverness and Nairn Enterprise (a Scottish
    development agency)
(2) Formerly known as Selfcare International GmbH
(3) Formerly known as Bvba Selfcare Benelux sprl
(4) Orgenics, Ltd has subsidiaries in France (Orgenics France S.A., 100% owned),
    Brazil (Do Brasil Ltda, and Orgenics Reagentes Para Laboratorios Ltda -both
    100% owned), Columbia (Orgenics Columbia-branch, 100% owned) and Israel
    (Orgenics Biosensors Ltd, 86% owned).
(5) Only material assets are the shares of Orgenics Ltd. that it owns.
(6) Owns 50% (Joint Venture) of PBM-Selfcare, LLC
#### James M. Simpson v. State.

No. 25103.

January 17, 1951.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The conviction is for driving, while intoxicated, upon a public highway; the punishment, a fine of $250.

No statement of facts and no formal bills of exception appear in the record.

On page 5 of the transcript appellant calls this court’s attention to the form of the information, levelling his complaint against the use of the phrase: “* * * on the written affidavit of Lester Harris, a competent and creditable person herewith filed prior to the presentment of this information.” Appellant contends that this is an effort to bolster the state’s case by hearsay testimony as to the credibility of state’s witness.

Like contention has been recently held by this court to be without merit. Grady Ashley v. State, No. 25,085, opinion delivered January 3, 1951, 155 Texas Grim. Rep. 534.

Appellant insists that a variance exists between the com*401plaint and the information, but fails to point out the same. An inspection thereof fails to reveal any substantial variance.

On page 15 of the transcript there appears, though not in the form of a bill of exception, an exception of appellant to the court’s failure to sustain his motion for new trial. This cannot be considered as a bill of exception because the motion for new trial, itself, sets up at least five separate and distinct grounds and is, therefore, multifarious. Smithwick v. State, 155 Texas Crim. Rep. 292, 234 S. W. 2d 237; Humphrey v. State, 152 Tex. Cr. R. 203, 212 S. W. 2d 159; Sharp v. State, 151 Tex. Cr. R. 637, 210 S. W. 2d 174; White v. State, 150 Tex. Cr. R. 546, 203 S. W. 2d 222; Miller v. State, 129 Tex. Cr. R. 166, 84 S. W. 2d 459; Spruell v. State, 119 Tex. Cr. R. 317, 44 S. W. 2d 733; Ralph Eugene Ellison, No. 24,988, decided December 6, 1950, 155 Texas Crim. Rep. 336; Granado v. State, 154 Tex. Cr. R. 519, 228 S. W. 2d 530.

No error appearing, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, CASH FLOWS AND
SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,296
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,739
<ALLOWANCES>                                       235
<INVENTORY>                                      4,230
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,417
<PP&E>                                           2,061
<DEPRECIATION>                                     849
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,074
<BONDS>                                         27,242
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,016
<OTHER-SE>                                    (80,248)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (40,232)
<SALES>                                         28,432
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,522
<CGS>                                           23,309
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,352
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    43
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  37
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    206
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                206
<DISCONTINUED>                                (11,874)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,496)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.06)


</TABLE>
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 GCI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Duncan,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Date:  August 11, 2004                 /s/
                                       Ronald A. Duncan
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       GCI, Inc.


                                       1
<PAGE>
      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 GCI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M. Lowber, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



Date:  August 11, 2004                 /s/
                                       John M. Lowber
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       GCI, Inc.

                                       2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Mechanisms of Tissue Destruction in Rheumatoid Arthritis.                     

*Date:*                         September 5, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         11 a.m. to 2 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive Room 3256, Bethesda, MD 20817,  (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Wendy F. Davidson, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program,  Division of Extramural Activities,  National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616,  Bethesda, MD 20892-7616,  301-402-8399,                         *davidsonw@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 5, 2008. 

Anna Snouffer, 

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-18509 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF
WILLIAM LINTON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF
CALL-NET ENTERPRISES INC.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 40-F (the Form 40-F)
for the period ended December 31, 2003 of Call-Net Enterprises Inc.

I, William Linton, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Call-Net
Enterprises Inc. certify that to the best of my knowledge:



|(i)  |  | the Form 40-F fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)), as amended; and   
|---- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    
|(ii) |  | the information contained in the Form 40-F fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Call-Net
Enterprises Inc.

Dated: April 22, 2004



| | /s/ William Linton

Name:  Bill Linton
Title:    President and Chief Executive Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Call-Net Enterprises Inc. and will be retained by Call-Net and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### CARROLL v. DAVID.

No. 4892.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 9, 1935.

F, B. Cappel, of Alexandria, for appellant.

K. Hundley, of Alexandria, for appellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

Plaintiff by this suit against V. T. David, administrator of her mother’s succession, seeks to have him restore to the succession the difference between the actual value of certificates or “scrip” issued by the Rapides Bank & Trust Company to deceased, when its doors closed for business, and the amount paid her therefor by defendant. The amount of said certificates is alleged to have been $2,474.58, and the price paid therefor is alleged to have been $172. They are alleged to have been worth 70 per cent, of their face amount when sold to David.

The sale of the certificates is attacked on the grounds of insufficient consideration and for fraud and misrepresentations on the part of David; in the alternative, should it be held by the court that said certificates were not sold to David by deceased, but, in fact, donated to him, that, as there were three major children of deceased, such donation exceeded the disposable portion and should be reduced in amount to one-third of deceased’s estate at the time she died, and the difference should be covered into the succession to be administered and otherwise handled and distributed in the manner provided by law.

It is additionally alleged that David purchased certain real estate, described in the petition, in the city of Alexandria, La., with said certificates, and that this property rightfully belongs to said succession; and it is prayed that it be decreed to be an asset of said succession and inventoried and handled as such. These allegations and consonant prayer are not made in the alternative.

From a judgment sustaining an exception of no right and no cause of action, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, which, after considering the question of jurisdiction ra-tione materite, decided that the amount in dispute or fund to be distributed did not exceed $2,000, and transferred the appeal to this court. 179 La. 713, 154 So. 913. The appeal is now before us.

In 'this court the appellant has filed no brief, nor was her counsel present when the case was reached for argument. In these circumstances, following a well-established rule, we presume the appeal has been abandoned. W. R. Ross & Son v. Riverton Gin Co. (La. App.) 154 So. 368; Southern Kraft Corp. v. Louisiana Tax Commission, et al. (La. App.) 157 So. 775.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that this appeal be, and it is hereby, dismissed as having been abandoned.