alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4273

_____________________________

WILLIAM E. DUNCAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Gary L. Bergosh, Judge.

June 13, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

William E. Duncan, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. (the Registrant) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief
Executive Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III  
|Leo F. Wells, III         
|Chief Executive Officer   
|August 12, 2005           
|                          
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
|Douglas P. Williams       
|Chief Financial Officer   
|August 12, 2005
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50940

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIO MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, 

also known as Leopoldo Marin, 

also known as Elpor Marin-Olivarez, 

also known as Mario Castaneda,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-02-CR-117-ALL-H

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

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Martinez-Sanchez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Martinez-Sanchez complains that his sentence was improperly

enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior

conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is

unconstitutional. Martinez-Sanchez thus contends that his
No. 02-50940

-2-

sentence should not exceed the two-year maximum term of

imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Martinez-Sanchez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
|   | (1) | the      Quarterly Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the      quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act      of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | information      contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the      financial condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley      Vineyards, Inc. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      August 14, 2009 |
|----------------------------|
|                       |
| By:                        | /s/ James W. Bernau |   |
| Name:                      | James W. Bernau |   |
| Title:                     | Chief      Executive Officer |   |

----
EXHIBIT
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Magnitude Information Systems, Inc.
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the "Form
      10-Q"), I, Rudolf Hauke, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, as
      of
      the date hereof, 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,
      that the Company's Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
      contained in the Form 10-Q, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
                November 18, 2008
            /s/
            Rudolf
                HaukeRudolf
                HaukePresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-88,522-01

IN RE BRANDON LEKEITH JOHNSON, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 885737-A IN THE 232ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 232nd District Court of Harris County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Harris County. Should the

response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was

served with the habeas application and that the 180-day time frame set out in TEX. R. APP. P.

73.4(b)(5) has not expired shall also be submitted with the response. This application for leave to

file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the appropriate

response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: June 20, 2018

Do not publish
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 2, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60567

Summary Calendar

 

MARIA JAQUELINA VARGAS PEREZ,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA No. A75 478 436)

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

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Maria Jaquelina Vargas Perez, a citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the immigration judge

(“IJ”) to deny her application for cancellation of removal under

the Immigration and Nationality Act and voluntary departure. In

her petition, Vargas Perez argues that: (1) the BIA violated her

due process rights by issuing a summary affirmance of the IJ’s

denial; (2) the IJ violated her due process rights by failing to
2

rule on her asylum application; and (3) her various counsel during

her proceedings before the IJ rendered ineffective assistance by

failing to raise the asylum issue.

Respondent has filed a motion seeking dismissal of Vargas

Perez’s instant petition for lack of jurisdiction on the ground

that Vargas Perez failed to exhaust all of her available

administrative remedies. Our examination of the record confirms

that Vargas Perez failed to raise these claims before the BIA on

appeal or in a motion to reopen the proceedings. Her failure to

exhaust her administrative remedies deprives us of jurisdiction to

consider the instant petition. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448,

452 (5th Cir. 2001); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)(1999). Although Vargas

Perez argues that the exhaustion requirement should be waived under

the futility exception, she fails to allege facts warranting

application of that exception. See Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d

383, 389 (5th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we grant the respondent’s motions to waive the

requirement to file a brief and to dismiss the instant petition for

lack of jurisdiction, and we dismiss Vargas Perez’s petition and

deny all outstanding motions.

Motion to waive requirement to file brief GRANTED; motion to

dismiss GRANTED; petition DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; all

outstanding motions DENIED.
OSAC Registry Standards – Laboratory Implementation Declaration

Forensic Science Laboratory: _____________________________________________

Address: _________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

Declaration:

 The forensic science laboratory has self-adopted all of the applicable OSAC Registry Standards in the

 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual(s) and/or Quality Manual.

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual(s)

Quality Manual

 The forensic science laboratory has self-adopted the applicable OSAC Registry Standards in the

 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual(s) and/or Quality Manual of the following sections:

SECTION REGISTRY STANDARDS

Anthropology

Bloodstain Pattern Analysis

Crime Scene Investigation

Digital Evidence

Disaster Victim Identification

DNA

Dogs and Sensors

Facial Identification

Fire and Explosion Investigation

Fire Debris and Explosives

Firearms and Toolmarks

Footwear and Tire

Forensic Document Examination

Friction Ridge

Geological Materials

Gunshot Residue

Materials (Trace)

Medicolegal Death Investigation

Odontology

Seized Drugs

Serology/General Biology

Speaker Recognition 

Toxicology

Video/Imaging Technology Analysis

Wildlife Forensics 

Other 

Laboratory Director: Date: 

November 2019
Opinion issued September 27 , 201 2

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 12 - 00 860 - CR

——————————— IN R E DENNIS LEN LIVINGS , Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Dennis Len Livings , has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in this C ourt. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE § 22.221 (Vernon 2004) ; see also T EX . R. A PP . P. 52
. Relator complains that the trial court 1 has failed to rule on

1 Relator provides information indicating that this original proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1035169

- A , styled Ex Parte Dennis Len Livings , 174th District Court,2

motions relator has filed in aid of his post
- conviction writ of habeas corpus
. This Court, as an intermediate appellate court, has no jurisdiction over post

conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. 2 See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.05 , art . 11.07, § 3(a), (b) ( Ve rnon 2005 & Vernon Supp. 201 2 ); In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (noting that “only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post

- conviction felony proceedings”). Thus, we also lack jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief in matters related to a post

- conviction writ application. See In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d at 717

– 18; see also In re Perryman , No 04

– 11

– 00300

– CR , 2011 WL 2165145 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio May 25 , 201 1 , orig. proce eding) (mem. op.; not designated for pub.) (dismissing petition for writ of mandamus in case in which relator complained that trial court failed to rule on motions related to a post
- conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus )
.

Harris County. Relator identifies the Honorable Ruben Guerrrero as the respondent in this original mandamus proceeding
. 2 Relator was convicted of the felony offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to a mandatory life sentence as a repeat sex of fender. We affirmed relator’s conviction in Livings v. State , No. 01

– 06

– 00146

– CR, 2007 WL 1500300, at *7 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] May 24, 2007, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.; not designated for pub.)
.3

W e dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley , and Sharp
. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2( b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1415

PHILLIP MIZRACH, as Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Abraham I. Kurland, Deceased, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:08- cv-02030-AMD)

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Mizrach, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Harold Barnard, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Phillip Mizrach, as personal representative of the Estate of Abraham I. Kurland, appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his medical malpractice complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (2006), and denying his motion for

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mizrach v. United States , No. 1:08-cv02030-AMD (D. Md. Feb. 17, 2009 & Mar. 11, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 22, 2014. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 22, 2014 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15D0019. MARYAM A. EL-AMIN A/K/A MARYAM A. MILLER et al. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2012CV210745
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 13, 2016

No. 04-16-00559-CR

Stanley Foster BAKER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-1755-CR-A

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The trial court imposed sentence on July 20, 2016, and Appellant is currently 

incarcerated. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and indicated he will represent himself on 

appeal. The appellate record is due on September 19, 2016. 

In Appellant’s letter of September 6, 2016, filed on September 12, 2016, he states he has 

“been denied access to the jail law library computer and books since July 3, 2016.” He also asks 

“the court for an extension of all filing deadlines until [he has] adequate access to all required 

law material and paperwork for [his] appeal.”

Appellant’s general motion for an extension of time for all filing deadlines in this appeal 

is DENIED without prejudice to Appellant seeking an extension of time for a specific deadline.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of September, 2016.
___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Magnitude  Information Systems,
Inc. (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended  September 30, 2006
(the "Form 10-QSB"), I, Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, as of the date hereof,  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,   that  the  Company's   Form  10-QSB  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information  contained in the Form 10-QSB,  fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  November 17, 2006               /s/ Joerg H. Klaube
                                        -------------------
                                        Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000068622
<NAME> U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             191
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,576
<ALLOWANCES>                                        30
<INVENTORY>                                        142
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,162
<PP&E>                                          30,988
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,540
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,350
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,491
<BONDS>                                          5,411
<COMMON>                                         7,348
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,602)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,350
<SALES>                                          9,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,284
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,059
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 386
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,917
<INCOME-TAX>                                       698
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,219
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (8)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,211
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection
with the Annual Report of Siebert Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Muriel F. Siebert, in my capacity as Chair and
President of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

(1) the Report
filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the
Company for the period covered by the report.

|                        |  |                      
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------
|/s/ Muriel
  F. Siebert |  | Date: April
  2, 2007
|                        |  |                      
|Muriel F.
  Siebert     |  |                      
|Chair and
  President   |  |                      

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by section 906, has been provided to Siebert Financial Corp. and will be
retained by Siebert Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---