alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 60053 Summary Calendar

**____________ John Howard Overstreet,**  Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus **Doug Miller,** Assistant Prosecutor **; Chip Lewis,** County Public Defender **; Prentiss Harrell,** 15th Judicial Circuit Court Judge **,** Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:20

- CV

- 124

**______________________________** Before **Jones ,**  **Haynes ,**  and **Oldham ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** In June 2020, John Howard Overstreet pled guilty to being a sex offender living within 3,000 feet of a school

. See **Miss**

**. Code**  **Ann.** § 45

- 33

- 25(4)(a) (West 2023) . Judge Prentiss Harrell of Mississippi’s Fifteenth Judicial District sentenced Overstreet to a five

- year term of probation. Then i n July 2020

— p roceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

—

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 21, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-60053 Document: 00516794148 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2023No. 23

- 60053

2 Overstreet filed a Section 1983 suit against prosecutor Doug Miller, public defender Chip Lewis , and Judge Harrell

. Overstreet alleges the defendants violated his constitutional rights by not informing Overstreet that he would have to wear an ankle monitor as a condition of probation

. The district court dismissed Overstreet’s complaint for failure to state a claim , s ee 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)( B)(ii) , and levied a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) . Specifically, the district court accepted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that Overstreet had failed to state any basis why Harrell and Miller are not entitled to immunity, why Lewis had acted under color of state law , or why all of Overstreet’s claims are not barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). On appeal, Overstreet still fails to brief any of the issues the district court ruled upon. He h as therefore “ forfeited any challenge to the district court ’ s primary holding that the allegations failed to state a plausible claim .” Stevens v. St. Tammany Par. Gov’t , 17 F.4th 563 , 574 (5th Cir. 2021) ; see also **Fed. R. App. P.** 28(a)(8) ; Jaco v. Garland , 24 F.4th 395 , 401 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021) ( “ Although we liberally construe pro se [filings] , pro se litigants must still comply with the civil rules of appellate procedure. ” )

. **AFFIRM ED** 

. Case: 23-60053 Document: 00516794148 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2023
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 28, 2015

a0518

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2015

150109

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150109

COA: 322356

Genesee CC: 06-019088-FC

ANDRE BERNARD DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
### M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 45TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on February 11, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Richard Lares, Appellant

V.

Martha Flores, Appellee

No. 04

- 13

- 00792

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2006

- CI

- 15663

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order

is AFFIRMED.

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant Richard Lares

because he is indigent.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on April 28, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 13

- 00792

- CV

Richard Lares

v.

Martha Flores

(NO. 2006

- CI

- 15663 IN 45TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

REPORTER'S RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

FILING $10.00

$55.00

$180.00

$200.00

$195.00 E

- PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

INDIGENT JAMIE GRAHAM

CINDY DEES AS PETITIONER IS INDIGENT

CINDY DEES AS PETITIONER IS INDIGENT

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in**  **this cause shall**  **be paid as**  **per the**  **Judgment issued by**  **this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this April 28, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LAVON CECIL SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 322 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of February, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 18

- 00212

- CR
JENNA ELISE WALTON , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014

- 2304

- C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Jenna Elise Walton entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated
perjury. The trial court placed Walton on four years ’ deferred adjudication probation

and assessed a fine of $750.00 . The State subsequently moved to adjudicate Walton’s guilt
after she violated the terms of her probation. Walton entered a plea of true to allegations

two t hrough thirteen in the State’s first amended motion to adjudicate guilt , and t he trial
court sentenced Walton to two years’ incarceration. The written judgment adjudicating
guilt reflects that the trial court additionally imposed a $750.00 fine. Although , as noted,Walton v. State Page 2

the trial court included a $750.00 fine in the order of deferred adjudication, the
subsequent judgment adjudicating Walton’s guilt set aside that order. See Taylor v. State , 131 S.W.3d 497, 4 99

- 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
In one point of erro r, Walton asserts that the trial court erred by assessing a fine in
the written judgment because the trial court did not orally pronounce a fine as part of
Walton’s sentence after adjudicating h er guilt

. 1 The State concedes that the re was no oral
pronouncement of a fine , which our review of the record confirms.
When there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement of a sentence and the

sentence in the written judgment , the oral pronouncement controls. Taylor , 131 S.W.3d

at 500; Coffey v. State , 979 S.W.2d 32 6, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) ; Freeman v. State , 554
S.W.3d 816, 817 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2018, no pet.) . Because the trial court did not orally
pronounce the imposition of a fine when Walton was adjudicated guilty , the trial court

erred in inclu ding a fine in the judgment.
Accordingly, we modify the judgment adjudicating guilt to delete the $750.00 fine.
We affirm the judgment as modified

.

REX D. DAVIS Justice

1 Walton’s attorney filed an Anders brief and a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record on January 2, 2019. On March 6, 2019, Walton’s attorney filed a “Notice that Counsel Wishes to Withdraw His Previously Filed Anders Brief and Motion to Withdraw and That Counsel Intends to File a Brief on the Merits Later Today.” As Walton’s Amended Brief was also filed on March 6, 2019, the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record is dismissed.Walton v. State Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Affirmed as modified Opinion d elivered and filed April 17, 2019 Do not publish [CR 25 ]
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe &Jack (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending November 1,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”),

 

I,Raymond L. Arthur, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(i)            TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Date:   December 10, 2008 | by:  /s/ Raymond L. Arthur                             |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | Raymond  L. Arthur                                     |
|                                | Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0219

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

MIKI L. ADAMS,

 Petitioner and Appellee,

 and

DIRK S. ADAMS,

 Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Christopher J. Gillette, whose name appears next on 

the list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Domestic Relations appeals 

which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the 

mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P.,

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this May 2, 2023.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Dirk S. Adams, dirkadams@mac.com

Jami L. Rebsom, jamirebsom@gmail.com

Adrienne R. Ellington, adrienne@ellingtonlegal.com

Christopher J. Gillette, chris@cjgillettelaw.com

05/02/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0219
No. 72-658.

#### City of Kenosha et al. *v.*Bruno et al.

Appeal from D. C. E. D. Wis. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 409 U. S. 1105.] Motion to dispense with filing a brief on the merits on behalf of appellees Richard Misurelli and David Robers granted.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 169 (Friday, August 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20070]



[[Page 50981]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1780-DR]


Texas; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas (FEMA-1780-DR), dated July 24, 2008, and related 
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 13, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following area 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of July 24, 2008.

    Jim Hogg County for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-20070 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         3,529,578
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  510,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                   24,395
<INVENTORY>                                    434,702
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,522,261
<PP&E>                                         26,727,330
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,493,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 22,118,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,151,301
<BONDS>                                        2,903,192
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,316,108
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,854,282
<SALES>                                        2,175,647
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,214,551
<CGS>                                          1,231,928
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,094,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               2,389,932
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             402,012
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,614,868)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,614,868)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,704,837)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.34)

        

</TABLE>
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

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council, September 9, 2008, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Conference Room 10, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 31, 2008, FRE8-17517.                

The meeting is open to the public from 1-1:30 p.m. and closed to the public from 1:30-3 p.m. The rest of the information remains the same.

Dated: August 19, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

 [FR Doc. E8-19672 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
BLD

- 341 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15

- 2978

____________

I N RE: WAYNE PETTAWAY

,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus

____________________________________

Submitte d Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

September 17, 2015 Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : October 2, 2015 )

_________

OPINION *

_________

PER CURIAM

Wayne Pettaway , a state prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of mandamus

cla iming that he has been “unlawfully incarcerated without the proper documentation

such [as] a commi[t]ment order or a sentencing order.” He seeks immediate release from

state prison and “redress” for his unlawful confinement

. We will deny the petition.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

Our jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the power to

“issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our jurisdiction] and agreeable to the

usages and principles of law.” A writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy that is invoked

only in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402

(1976). To justify the use of this extraordinary remedy, a petitioner must show both a

clear and indisputable right to the writ, and that he has no other adequate means to obtain

the relief desired. See Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc. , 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992).

Pettaway is not entitled to this extraordinary relief. Pettaway is seeking an order

from the District Court compelling state action with request to a st ate prisoner. A federal

court . . . may not use a writ of mandamus to compel a state court to exercise a

jurisdiction entrusted to it.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 654 F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir.

1981). Moreover, Pettaway has other adequate means to challe nge his incarceration

—

either in state court or through a properly filed petition for habeas corpus, as appropriate. 1

For these reasons, we will deny the mandamus petition.

1 We, of course, do not make any comment on the viability of any other motion or petition for relief, including a habeas petition, that Pettaway may choose to file.
**EXHIBIT 32**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thefollowing certifications are being made to accompany the Registrant’s annualreport on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 29, 2006:**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**(1)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of NeimanMarcus, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i)            the Annual Report onForm 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended July 29, 2006(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

(ii)           the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: September 27, 2006 | /s/  BURTON M. TANSKY                                     |
|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                      | Burton  M. Tansky

President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**(1)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of NeimanMarcus, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i)            the Annual Report onForm 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended July 29, 2006(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

(ii)           the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: September 27, 2006 | /s/  JAMES E. SKINNER                                                 |
|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      | James  E. Skinner

Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----

(1)                                  A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Neiman Marcus, Inc. and will beretained by Neiman Marcus, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
**Exhibit
        99.2**
 
 CERTIFICATE
        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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-KQSB/A of
            Loma Verde Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006, as
            filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
            I, Peter
            Hill, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, 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 and
            belief:
 1.
              The Report
                  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d)
                  of the
                  Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                  and
 
 2.
              The
                  information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
                  Company.
 
 September
            1, 2006
  PETER
        HILL
 Peter
        Hill
 Chief
        Executive Officer,
 President
        and Director








-1-