alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Granted; Order filed February 11 , 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00352

- CR

____________ ELIC MILTON LYMAN , SR. , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court Brazoria Cou n ty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 83696

- CR



### ORDER
Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant has filed a motion to delay
fil ing his pro se response until after he has had the opportun ity to review the
record

. S ee Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Th e motion is granted

.Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 239th District Court to afford

appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local procedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant on or before February 21, 20 20 ; that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on which delivery of the r ecord to appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se brief with this court within thirty days of that date.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-039-03-PB

 

Francisco Alfaro

O R D E R

The defendant, Francisco Alfaro, moved for a sentence

reduction based upon the cocaine base ("crack cocaine") amendment

to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines implementing the Fair

Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372

(2010) ("2010 Fair Sentencing Act") (document no. 124). That

amendment was given retroactive effect on November 1, 2011. For

the reasons stated below, the defendant's motion to reduce

sentence is DENIED. 

The 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, by omission, prohibits persons

who received a career offender guideline sentence from receiving

a sentence reduction based upon the retroactive application of

the cocaine base amendment. Specifically, the United States

Sentencing Commission amended § 1B1.1, (Application Instructions)

and adopted a three-step approach to determine the sentence to be

imposed. Under § 1B1.1, the court first determines the guideline

Case 1:08-cr-00039-PB Document 126 Filed 12/14/11 Page 1 of 3
range and then considers any departures or variances. Consistent

with that approach, the proposed guideline at §1B1.10, comment

(n.1[A]) was also amended to reflect that "eligibility for

consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by

an amendment listed in subsection (c) that lowers the applicable

guideline range (i.e., the guideline range that corresponds to

the offense level and criminal history category determined

pursuant to § 1B1.1(a), which is determined before consideration

of any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any

variances.)." The only exception to reducing the defendant's

term of imprisonment to a term that is less than the minimum of

the amended guideline range would be a sentence which resulted

from a downward departure pursuant to a government motion for

substantial assistance, which has no application here.

In this case, the defendant was deemed to be a career

offender. Thus, while the application of the cocaine base

amendment would result in a reduction of his base offense level

from 24 to 22, his total offense level would not change because

he is a career offender. As a result, because the career

offender guideline was not lowered by the 2010 Fair Sentencing

Act cocaine base amendment, he is not eligible for a reduction of

his sentence. The fact that the court originally accepted a

binding stipulation as to the drug weight attributable to the

2

Case 1:08-cr-00039-PB Document 126 Filed 12/14/11 Page 2 of 3
defendant, and granted a joint motion for a variant sentence of

120 months (when the advisory guideline range was 188 to 235

months), does not alter this conclusion. Therefore, the

defendant's motion to for a sentence reduction (document no. 124)

is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Date: December , 2011 __________________________________

Paul J. Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Francisco Alfaro, pro se

Counsel of Record

3

Case 1:08-cr-00039-PB Document 126 Filed 12/14/11 Page 3 of 3
|   | (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                / Andrew Cimerman |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | -----------------------------------                 |   |
|   | Andrew                Cimerman                      |   |
|   | President                and                        |   |
|   | Chief                Executive Officer              |   |

|   | (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                / Marie M. May |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | --------------------------                       |   |
|   | Marie                M. May                      |   |
|   | Chief                Financial Officer           |   |
|   | Date:                January 22, 2008            |   |

----
**Exhibit 15.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-151490, 333-135116 as amended, 333-125978,333-122785, 333-107160, 333-1035332, 033-04813, 333-161684 and 333-161683) of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of our report dated April 21, 2010 relating to the financial statements of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, which appears in thisForm 20-F**.**

PricewaterhouseCoopers AB 

Malmo, Sweden 

April 21, 2010
#### Arts4all, Ltd., et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Judith L. Hancock, Respondent-Appellant. Judith L. Hancock, Respondent-Appellant, v Daniel Y.C. Ng et al., Defendants, and Peter Osgood, Appellant-Respondent.

[810 NYS2d 15]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), (1) entered September 30, 2004, insofar as it dismissed plaintiffs’ second, seventh and a portion of their twelfth causes of action and denied their motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint; (2) entered December 22, 2004, to the extent that it directed plaintiffs to answer defendant’s counterclaims, but not as part of a second amended complaint, which the court had already precluded; (3) entered January 26, 2005, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant to accept service of an amendment to a new complaint; (4) entered February 8, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion to renew so much of the September 30, 2004 order seeking summary dismissal of the first cause of action in the first amended complaint; (5) entered February 15, 2005, which imposed costs on plaintiffs and Osgood for failing to comply with an earlier order directing them to answer defendant’s counterclaims; and (6) entered May 5, 2005, which denied defendant’s renewal motion for default on the counterclaims, struck plaintiffs’ affirmative defenses to the counterclaims, declined to strike Osgood’s affirmative defenses, and declined to order plaintiffs and Osgood to post security, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having once amended their complaint, plaintiffs were not entitled to serve a second amended complaint as of right. The court’s denial of leave to amend was not an improvident exercise of discretion *(see Societe Nationale D'Exploitation Industrielle Des Tabacs Et Allumettes v Salomon Bros. Intl.,*268 AD2d 373 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 762 [2000]).

*454Plaintiffs’ cause of action for prima facie tort was properly dismissed, notwithstanding this Court’s previous finding of legal sufficiency (5 AD3d 106 [2004]), because plaintiffs failed to overcome defendant’s showing that the claim was barred by the *Noerr-Pennington*doctrine (see *I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v Duane Reade,*17 AD3d 206, 208 [2005]). Plaintiffs similarly failed to make the required showing of malice to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment on their defamation claims. On the other hand, defendant’s motion for summary judgment on what remains of plaintiffs’ first cause of action was properly denied since plaintiffs sufficiently established that Arts4All may well have suffered quantifiable damages as a result of defendant’s statement to Ohio government officials.

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 24, 2010 

1117 

Order 

 

November 24, 2010 

141218 & (20)(21) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141218 

 COA: 296018 

Wayne CC: 02-010195-FC 

TYSON DAVID O’NEAL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 19, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court. The trial 

court’s January 21, 2009 Opinion and Order states that the defendant’s judgment of 

sentence incorrectly showed the defendant as a fourth felony offender, when it should 

have designated him a second felony offender, and noted that a corrected judgment of 

sentence would be sent to the Department of Corrections. The copy of the judgment of 

sentence in the record does not reflect that the amendment or correction has been made. 

On remand, the circuit court shall assure that an amended judgment of sentence is 

prepared and transmitted to the Department of Corrections. In all other respects, leave to 

appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be 

reviewed by this Court. The motions to remand and for appointment of counsel are 

DENIED.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-51744,
No. 33-65239, No. 333-12189, No. 333-62187, No. 333-84219, No. 333-38884,
No. 333-68760 and No. 333-68762) pertaining to the 1991 Stock Option Plan of MSC.Software Corporation, the MSC.Software Corporation 1996 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, the 1998 Stock Option Plan of MSC.Software Corporation, the Executive Bonus Plan of MSC.Software Corporation, the 2000 Executive Cash or Stock Bonus Plan, the Advanced Enterprise Solutions Stock
Option Program of MSC.Software Corporation and the 2001 Stock Option Plan of MSC.Software Corporation and to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3
No. 333-89317 and No. 333-86809) of MSC.Software Corporation and the related Prospectuses to the Registration Statement (Form S-3
No. 333-89319) and the related Prospectus of our report dated February 28, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2000, of MSC.Software Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

|                                         |  |                      
|---------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|                                         |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|                                         |  |                      
|Los Angeles, California
October 28, 2003 |  |                      

---

QuickLinks
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

December 21, 2016

s1214 

# Order

Clerk December 21, 2016

154087

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154087

COA: 332800

Kent CC: 15

- 001236

- FH

RODERICK ANTONIODION DAVIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2016 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentence of the Kent Circuit Court, and we

REMAND this case to that court for resentencing. The circuit court erred in assigning 10

points for Offense Variable 9 (OV 9), MCL 777.39, where fewer than two victims were

placed in danger of physical injury or loss of life. Because correcting the OV score

cha nges the applicable guidelines range, resentencing is required. People v Kimble , 470

Mich 305 (2004).
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22650]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    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 Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel; Research Projects in Red Blood Cells.
    Date: October 17, 2008.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Churchill Hotel, 1914 Connecticut Ave., Washington, 
DC 20009.
    Contact Person: Charles Joyce, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Review Branch/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 7196, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0288, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#36555c594f555376585e5a545f18585f5e18515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bf8f1f4e2f8fedbf5f3f7f9f2b5f5f2f3b5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health 
HHS)

    Dated: September 18, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
 [FR Doc. E8-22650 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2




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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of CDSI Holdings Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J.
Bryant Kirkland III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

         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.









November 3, 2003                  /s/ J. BRYANT KIRKLAND III
                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                  J. Bryant Kirkland III
                                  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert D. Campbell, Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 925]

Appeal from a judgment of Steuben County Court (Kehoe, J.), entered July 29, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted rape in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of defendant to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that he was compelled to plead guilty because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is supported only by defendant’s *868testimony at a hearing held on the motion, and the court in its discretion was entitled to find that testimony to be incredible (see *People v Alexander,*97 NY2d 482, 485; *see also People v Boyer,*237 AD2d 743, 744, *lv denied*90 NY2d 855; *People v Contreras,*219 AD2d 495, *lv denied*87 NY2d 845). Indeed, defendant’s testimony at the hearing is refuted by the record of the lengthy plea colloquy, wherein defendant indicated that he was satisfied with the representation of assigned counsel, denied being coerced, and asserted that he was acting voluntarily. Defense counsel negotiated a favorable plea agreement and provided defendant with meaningful representation (see *People v Rhodes,*251 AD2d 906, 906, *lv denied*92 NY2d 929). Furthermore, the agreed-upon sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Green, J.P., Hayes, Wisner, Burns and Lawton, JJ.
EXHIBIT 

31 

Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 14 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
 

dn-161446 

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, 

COLORADO 

Court Address: Denver City and County Building 

1437 Bannock St. 

Denver, Colorado 80202 

Plaintiff: United Western Bank 

v. 

Defendant(s): Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲

Attorneys for Defendants: Countrywide Financial 

Corporation, Countrywide Home Mortgage Loans, Inc., 

CWALT, Inc., CWMBS, Inc., Countrywide Capital Markets, 

Countrywide Securities Corporation, and Bank of America 

Corporation 

Case No.: 2010CV3325 

Division: 2 

Randall J. Fons 

Email: RFons@mofo.com 

Atty. Reg. #: 37214 

Nicole K. Serfoss 

Email: nserfoss@mofo.com 

Atty. Reg. #: 36815 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

5200 Republic Plaza 

370 Seventeenth Street 

Denver, Colorado 80202-

5638 

Telephone: 303.592.1500 

Facsimile: 303.592.1510 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice:

Eugene Illovsky 

Email: EIllovsky@mofo.com 

PHV #: 10PHV2548 

Darryl P. Rains 

Email: DRains@mofo.com 

PHV #: 10PHV2547 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

755 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018 

Telephone: (650) 813-5600 

Facsimile: (650) 494-0792 

Craig D. Martin 

Email: CMartin@mofo.com 

PHV #: 10PHV2549 

Morrison & Foerster LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 268-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Joint Motion for Extension of Time To 

APPROVED

 

 

Movant shall serve copies of this ORDER on 

any pro se parties, pursuant to CRCP 5, and 

file a certificate of service with the Court 

within 10 days. 

Dated: Jan 26, 2011 

William W. Hood III 

District Court Judge 

DATE OF ORDER INDICATED ON ATTACHMENT

 

EFILED Document 

CO Denver County District Court 2nd JD 

Filing Date: Jan 26 2011 9:30AM MST 

Filing ID: 35586401 

Review Clerk: Nancy E Magdaleno

Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 14 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
 2 

dn-161446 

Respond To Complaint. Being fully informed and for good cause shown, the Court hereby 

GRANTS the parties’ motion and ORDERS that: Defendants, Countrywide Financial 

Corporation, CWALT, Inc., CWMBS, Inc., Countrywide Capital Markets, Countrywide 

Securities Corporation, Bank of America Corporation and UBS Securities LLC’s response to the 

complaint shall be due 30 days after the Court’s ruling on plaintiff’s anticipated motion for leave 

to amend the complaint. 

Dated: ___________, 2011 

BY THE COURT: 

____________________________________ 

 Herbert L. Stern III 

 Denver District Court Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 14 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
/s/ Judge William W Hood III 

Court: CO Denver County District Court 2nd JD 

Judge: William W Hood 

File & Serve 

Transaction ID: 35493322 

Current Date: Jan 26, 2011 

Case Number: 2010CV3325 

Case Name: UNITED WESTERN BANK vs. COUNTRYWIDE FNCL CORP et al 

Court Authorizer: William W Hood III 

Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 14 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4