alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10806 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

CY VIATOR
,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15

- CR

- 44

- 24

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Cy Viator has moved for leave to
withdraw and has filed brief s in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Viator has filed response s

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief s and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Viator ’s response s . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdra w is GRANTED, counsel is excused

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 16, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10806 Document: 00514960832 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2019No. 17

- 10806

2 from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2

. Case: 17-10806 Document: 00514960832 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
an Annual Report on Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to 
such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JAN-01-1999
<CASH>                                         46,233
<SECURITIES>                                    6,533         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,389
<ALLOWANCES>                                      206
<INVENTORY>                                     1,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               69,243 
<PP&E>                                        956,294
<DEPRECIATION>                                194,860
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                876,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         102,903
<BONDS>                                       717,460
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                     45,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  876,486
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              326,130
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 122,163 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              154,518
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             57,286
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   338
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               338
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (2,249)
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,911)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        

</TABLE>
March 17, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GLYNN CHASE WASHINGT ON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00678

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______________________ _________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs e xpended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
### The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District 1 

### Court Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 96-1530

___________ Ronald D. Chandler, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Missouri. * Dick Moore; James D. Purkett, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 3, 1996 Filed: September 17, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Robert D. Chandler, a Mis souri inmate, appeals the district court's 1 dismissa l of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim . Afterde novo review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclud e that the dismissal was correct. See8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### NYGARD INC.; et al., Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellants, v. HAGGAR CLOTHING CO.; et al., Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellees.

No. 03-55599. D.C. No. CV-02-08781-JFW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 24, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We subject a district court’s order regarding prehminary injunctive relief only to limited review. *Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc.,*198 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir.1999). Our review of an order regarding a preliminary injunction “is much more limited than review of an order involving a permanent injunction, where all conclusions of law are freely reviewable.” *Id.*A decision regarding a preliminary injunction is re*653viewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the district court based its decision on either an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings. *Id.*

We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion here. We therefore affirm the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction. Our disposition will affect the rights of the parties only until the district court renders final judgment. *Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International,*686 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir.1982).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7456

DONALD L. PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HARRY W. GARRETT, JR.; ANN K. SHIPP,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

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

(CA-97-629-R)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 2, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald L. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is

frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. Phillips v. Garrett, No. CA-97-629-R (W.D. Va.

Sept. 17, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2





P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.


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 on Form 10-Q/A of P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Joseph A. Molino, Jr., Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, 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/ JOSEPH A. MOLINO, JR.Joseph A. Molino, Jr.Date May 13, 2011
Principal Financial Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOHN W. SMITH a/k/a JOHN WARD ) SMITH III, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3027 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 28, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Wayne M. Durden, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Judith Ellis, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT SAMUEL SWEET, DOC #H43694, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-4557 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed November 1, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Donald D. Jacobson, Judge. Samuel Sweet, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. SLEET, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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 Annual Report of Arotech Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Paup, Vice President – Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









By:      /s/ Thomas J. Paup


Thomas J. Paup,


Vice President – Finance and CFO


(Chief Financial Officer)





Date:           March 30, 2011
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas September 28, 2020
No. 04-20-00466-CR
IN RE Isidro RAMOS , III Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena Chapa, Justice On September 17, 2020, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for leave to file the petition. We deny as moot relator’s motion for leave because leave is not required to file a petition in an intermediate appellate court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1; In re Medina, 04-19-00041-CR, 2019 WL 360534, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 30, 2019, no pet.). In his petition for writ of mandamus, relator complains of the trial court’s refusal to rule on his motion for DNA testing, which he contends he filed on December 3, 2019 and re-filed on June 5, 2020. This court believes a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real party in interest may file a response to the petition in this court no later than October 13, 2020. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED September 28, 2020. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015-CR-9685, styled The State of Texas v. Isidro Ramos, III , pending in the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lorina L. Rummel presiding.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, that the undersigned, Mark W. Dowley,
constitutes and appoints Yehoram Uziel and Robert E. Kassel, or either of them,
his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, each with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB, Annual Report of Soligen
Technologies, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2000, and any amendments or supplements thereto, and to file this Power of
Attorney and the Form 10-KSB, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange granting unto each of said
attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorney-in-fact
and agent, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

             Dated this      26th       day of June 2000
                         --------------


Signature


/s/ Mark W. Dowley
---------------------------------------------
Mark W. Dowley, Director
Order entered May 14, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00191-CV

BALTASAR D. CRUZ, Appellant

V.

JAMES VAN SICKLE, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-09275

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s May 10, 2013 unopposed motion for extension of 

time to file his brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellant to file his brief 

by June 17, 2013. No further extensions will be granted without a showing of exceptional 

circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOSEPH L. STRICKLAND, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3618

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed August 31, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Charles E. Roberts, Judge.

Joseph L. Strickland, pro se. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Katie Salemi Ashby, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
18559.

#### BALL, Chief of Police, *et al. v.*PEAVY.

Argued April 13, 1954

Decided May 11, 1954.

*576*Q. L. Garrett, Garrett & McDonald,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Gibson & Maddox, Wilson & Wilson,*contra.

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

The judgment now under review is one holding that, in so far as section 4 of the charter of the City of Waycross (Ga. L. 1909, pp. 1456, 1461), and an ordidance adopted pursuant thereto, authorize and empower the city to exercise the extra powers enumerated outside the corporate limits of the city, they are unconstitutional and void. The attack thus sustained was upon the ground that such portion of the charter was not referred to in the caption, and hence offended sec. VII, art. Ill, par. VIII of the Constitution (Code, Ann., § 2-1908). The relevant part of section 4 is as follows: “That for the purpose of protecting the peace, good order, morals and health of said city, its corporate limits and its jurisdiction shall extend for one mile beyond its limits as now defined or . . . hereafter extended,” and the material portion of the caption is as follows: “An act to provide and establish a new charter for the city of Waycross . . . and to extend and define its corporate limits.”

This court had for decision in *Blair*v. *State,*90 *Ga.*326 (17 S. E. 96, 35 Am. St. R. 206), the identical constitutional question, although the caption of the Columbus charter was slightly different in its wording from the caption here, the relevant portion being, “An act to create a new charter for the City of Columbus, and to consolidate and declare the rights and powers of said corporation.” But the reasons stated in that opinion why the provisions in the body of the act were unconstitutional as not being covered by the caption apply here. While section 4 mentions this additional area as corporate limits for the recited purposes, nevertheless it is obvious that it has to do solely with powers of the municipality. To draw a municipal charter is to *577define its corporate limits, without which it would be void. Thus the mere additional phrase, “to extend and define its corporate limits,” adds nothing to the caption of the Waycross charter that was not in the Columbus charter. Accordingly, since the title of the act affords no indication of any purpose on the part of the General Assembly to provide the City of Waycross with such extra powers over the neighboring territory within one mile of the city’s limits *(Blair*v. *State,*90 *Ga.*326, supra), the court did not err in holding it subject to the constitutional attack and in granting the permanent injunction.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 31


                               Certification

      Re:  New Century Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-1 (the "Trust" or the
          "Issuing Entity")

            I, Kevin Cloyd, certify that:

            1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on
Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
 on Form 10-K of New Century Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-1 (the "Exchange
Act periodic reports");

            2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken
as a whole, do 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 such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;

            3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and
other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

            4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement
required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB and, except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled
its obligations under the servicing agreement; and

            5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities
required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of
Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as
 an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.
Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the unaffiliated parties listed on Schedule A
attached hereto.


<page>








                                        NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE
                                        CORPORATION

                                         By: /s/ Kevin Cloyd
                                         Name:  Kevin Cloyd
                                         Title: Executive Vice President








                                         Date:
   April 2, 2007

<page>
                               SCHEDULE A



1. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
2. Assurant Inc.
3. FIS Tax Services
#### Elijah H. Everett, as Administrator, etc., of Dorcas A. Everett, Deceased, Respondent, v. The Village of Waverly, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00081-CV

IN RE WILLIAM THOMAS 

LEONARD

RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

ORDER

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

By order dated March 6, 2013, the court converted Relator William 

Thomas Leonard’s criminal appeal into an original proceeding for a writ of 

mandamus. In the same order, we requested that the State file a response 

concerning the merits of Relator’s request for mandamus relief. The State filed a 

response on March 18, 2013, asking in part that Relator first be required to 

provide a record as required by rule of appellate procedure 52.7 and that the 

State be able to respond only after Relator had done so. Relator filed a reply on 

March 21, 2013, and attached various documents that Relator states are “true 

and correct copies of the originals.” The documents attached to Relator’s reply 

brief are not, however, sworn or certified copies as is required by rule 52.7.
2

Given that this proceeding began as a criminal appeal and that the court 

converted the case to an original proceeding by construing Relator’s filings as a 

petition for writ of mandamus, we agree that Relator should be given an 

opportunity to comply with rule 52.7 by providing the court and the State with 

sworn or certified copies of the documents that he contends show his entitlement

to mandamus relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7. 

Accordingly, it is ordered that:

1. Relator shall file with the court a record that complies with rule 

of appellate procedure 52.7 within ten days of the date of this 

order. Relator may, but is not required to, file a brief seeking 

mandamus relief. If Relator files a brief, the brief must comply 

with rule of appellate procedure 52.3 and this court’s local 

rules. The mailbox rule shall not apply.

2. The State may then file a brief with the court within ten days of 

the date that Relator files a record as ordered above. The 

mailbox rule shall not apply. 

3. Any reply shall be filed within five days of the date that the 

State files a brief as ordered above. The mailbox rule shall 

not apply, and the court may consider and decide the case 

before a reply is filed. Tex. R. App. P. 52.5.

The clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the 

attorneys of record, the State, the trial court judge, and the trial court clerk.
3

DATED April 9, 2013.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

                Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Paradise, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jack M.
Laskowitz, as Chief Financial Officer of Paradise, Inc., certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:


     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 Paradise, Inc.



       /s/ Jack M. Laskowitz            Date:  May 17, 2004
       -----------------------------
       Jack M. Laskowitz
       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer