alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Filed 11/24/15 P. v. Garza CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CEASAR JULIUS GARZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

C078544

(Super. Ct. No. CRF145554)

Appointed counsel for defendant Ceasar Julius Garza asked this court to review 

the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

I

A felony complaint charged defendant with stalking in violation of a court order 

(Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b) -- count 1)

1 and stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a) -- count 2). 

Defendant pleaded no contest to count 1 in return for the dismissal of count 2 and a 

stipulated three-year state prison sentence. As a factual basis to support the plea, the 

parties stipulated that between December 15, 2013 and November 12, 2014, defendant 

continuously called and harassed the victim and came to her home several times in a 

 

1

 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

manner that indicated a credible threat to the victim. When he did so, he was under a 

restraining order to stay away from the victim due to a prior incident involving her. 

The trial court granted the People’s motion to dismiss count 2, sentenced 

defendant to the stipulated term of three years in prison, awarded 184 days of presentence 

custody credit (92 actual days and 92 conduct days), and ordered defendant to pay a $300 

restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 

court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. 

Code, § 70373). 

II

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and 

asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable 

issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of 

the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. 

More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 /S/

Mauro, J.

We concur:

 /S/

Nicholson, Acting P. J.

 /S/

Butz, J.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Cole, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 709]

— Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J), rendered October 11, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of robbery in the third degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting *1302him, after a nonjury trial, of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, we conclude that the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see generally Bleakley,*69 NY2d at 495). Where, as here, the defendant’s challenge is focused upon the credibility of the witnesses, we accord “great deference to the resolution of credibility issues by the trier of fact because those who see and hear the witnesses can assess their credibility and reliability in a manner that is far superior to that of reviewing judges who must rely on the printed record” *(People v Vanlare,*77 AD3d 1313, 1315 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 956 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Consequently, although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable based on all of the credible evidence *(see Danielson,*9 NY3d at 348; *Bleakley,*69 NY2d at 495), County Court specifically credited the victim’s testimony, and we see no basis to disturb that determination.

Additionally, inasmuch as defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is without merit, there is also no merit to his further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to preserve that challenge for our review *(see People v Stephenson,*104 AD3d 1277, 1279 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1020 [2013]; *People v Perez,*89 AD3d 1393, 1394 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 961 [2012]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Fahey, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of WMS Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian R. Gamache, Chief
Executive 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:

(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 results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Brian R. Gamache   
|Brian R. Gamache       
|Chief Executive Officer
|February 3, 2010       

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 WMS Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott D. Schweinfurth, 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:

(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 results of operations of the Company.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Scott D. Schweinfurth
|Scott D. Schweinfurth    
|Chief Financial Officer  
|February 3, 2010
Exhibit 10.9


CONFIDENTIAL


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


                    This
Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) is dated as of January 1, 2007 by and among 1st
United Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”), 1st United Bank (the “Bank”)
and Warren S. Orlando (the “Executive”).


W I T N
E S S E T H:


                    WHEREAS,
the Company, the Bank and the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement
dated March 4, 2004 (the “Agreement”), and the parties desire to amend the
Agreement; and


                    NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the Executive’s employment and the mutual
covenants herein contained, the Company, the Bank and the Executive hereby
agree that the terms of the Agreement are hereby modified and, to the extent
inconsistent with the terms of the Agreement, superseded as follows. All other
provisions of the Agreement remain as described in the Agreement. All
capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Agreement.


	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 The initial
 sentence of Section 5(a) of the Agreement shall be replaced in its entirety
 by the following:

 
	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 The
 Executive shall be granted by the Company, pursuant to terms as contained in
 stock option agreements, stock options in an amount equal to three and
 one-third percent (3.33%) of the issued and outstanding common stock of the
 Company from time to time (not including any common stock outstanding as a
 result of the exercise by the Executive of options granted to him. Any
 options issued under this provision on or after January 1, 2007 shall vest
 and become exercisable in five (5) equal increments on the 12, 24, 36, 48 and
 60 month anniversaries after the date of grant; provided, however,
 that notwithstanding any other provision in the Agreement to the contrary, in
 the event (i) the Executive is terminated by the Company not for “cause” as
 defined in Section 10(a)(i) of the Agreement, (ii) of a Change of Control,
 (iii) of the death of the Executive, or (iv) of the Disability of the
 Executive, then any unvested outstanding options granted under this provision
 upon the date of one of these events shall become immediately vested and
 exercisable upon such date.

 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Bank have caused
this Agreement to be executed and the Executive has hereunto set his hand, all
as of the day and year first above written.


	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
 1st
 UNITED BANCORP, INC.

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 
	
 By: 

 	
 /s/ John
 Marino

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 



 	
  

 
	
 Name: John
 Marino

 	
  

 
	
 Title:
 President

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 
	
 1st
 UNITED BANK

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 
	
 By: 

 	
 /s/ John
 Marino

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 



 	
  

 
	
 Name: John
 Marino

 	
  

 
	
 Title: Chief
 Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 
	
 EXECUTIVE:

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 
	
 /s/ Warren
 Orlando

 	
  

 
	
 



 	
  

 
	
 Warren S.
 Orlando
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00669

- CR

Arnoldo A. ALMEIDA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR7294

Honorable Catherine Torres

- Stahl , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

, JUSTICE VALENZUELA , AND JUSTICE BRISSETTE

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 11, 2024.

_____________________________ Lori Massey Brissette, Justice
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 23





                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
33-53922, 33-53924, 33-53926, 33-93796, 333-68427, 333-68417, 333-75927 and
333-75929 of Microtest, Inc. on Forms S-8 of our report dated January 27, 2000,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Microtest, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 1999.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Phoenix, Arizona

March 23, 2000
/**
 * @file
 * A JavaScript file for the load more botton on wide card component.
 */
(function ($, Drupal, window, document, cookies) {
  Drupal.behaviors.load_more_button = {
    attach: function (context, settings) {
      x=10;

      $(".component-wide-card-items").each(function() {
        $(this).find('li:lt('+x+')').show();
      });
      $('.component-load-more-button').click(function (e) {
        var wideCard = $(this).closest('.component-load-more-button').prev('.component-wide-card-items');
        size_li = wideCard.find('li').length;
        x= (x+10 <= size_li) ? x+10 : size_li;
        wideCard.find('li:lt('+x+')').show(500);
        if(x == size_li){
            $(this).fadeOut(500);
        }
        Drupal.blazy.init.revalidate();
        e.preventDefault();
        return false;
      });

      $(document).ready(function () {
        shown_cli=10;
        size_cli = $(".component-clinical-trials--science--items article.load_more").length;
        if(size_cli > shown_cli){
          $(".component-clinical-trials--science--items article.load_more").slice(shown_cli).hide();
        }
        if(shown_cli >= size_cli){
          $('#loadMore').hide();
        }
        $('#loadMore').click(function () {
          shown_cli= (shown_cli+10 <= size_cli) ? shown_cli+10 : size_cli;
            $('.component-clinical-trials--science--items article.load_more:lt('+shown_cli+')').show(500);
            if(shown_cli == size_cli){
                $('#loadMore').fadeOut(500);
            }
        });
      });
    }
  };
})(jQuery, Drupal, this, this.document, window.Cookies);
The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. CHAD MEEKS, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-05-297 DECISION

On May 4, 2006, the defendant was sentenced to ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Theft by Common Scheme, a felony.

On May 6,2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence *47or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 6th day of May, 2010.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

S i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. ** T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** * w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M O RRI S RO D G ERS, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. R U B E N R E Y N A G A ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 17161 D. C . No . 1 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 0 8 3 - J AT ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a m e s A . T e i l bor g, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng ** S ubm i tt e d A ugus t10, 2010 *** B efo re: H A W K IN S , M cK E O W N , an dIK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M orri s R od gers , a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en td i sm i ssi n g h i s 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 act i o n fo r fai l u re t o ex h au st a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e me d i e s u n d e rth e Pr i s o n Li t i g a t i o n Re f o rm A c t , 4 2 U . S. C. 

# FI LED AU G 25 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 17161 2 § 1997e ( a ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l f orf a i l ur e t o e xhaus t , a nd i t s f a c tua l de t e rm i na t i ons f

or c le a re rr o r , W

y at t v . T e rhune , 3 1 5 F. 3 d1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. C ontr a ryt o R odge r s ’ s c ont e nt i ons , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notc l e ar l ye rrby r e s o lv in g d is p u te dis s u e s o f f a c t in f a v o ro f d e f e n d an ts . Se e i d. at11 19 -20 (“ In deci di ng a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss for f ai l ure t o exh austno nj ud i ci alre m edi es , the court m ay l o o kb eyo n dth e p l ead i n g s an dd eci d e d i sp u t edi ssu es o f fact . ”). A cco rd i n g l y, th e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y d i sm i ssedth e act i o n b ecau se R o d g ers fai l edt o ex h au st a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s p r io rto f ilin g s u it. Se e W

oodf ord v . N go , 548 U . S . 81, 93- 9 5 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( h o ld in g th a t “p r o p e re x h au s tio n ” u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) is m a n d a to rya n dr e q u ir e s a d h e r e n c e to a d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e du r a l ru le s ) . R od gers ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 670

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource 

study of sites associated with the life of Ce ́sar Estrada Cha ́vez and 

the farm labor movement. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2005

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Mr. SALAZAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 

special resource study of sites associated with the life 

of Ce ́sar Estrada Cha ́vez and the farm labor movement.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ce ́sar Estrada Cha ́vez 

5 Study Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESOURCE STUDY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the 

8 date on which funds are made available to carry out this 

9 Act, the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this Act 
2

•S 670 IS 

1 as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall complete a resource study of 

2 sites in the State of Arizona, the State of California, and 

3 other States that are significant to the life of Ce ́sar E. 

4 Cha ́vez and the farm labor movement in the western 

5 United States to determine— 

6 (1) appropriate methods for preserving and in7 terpreting the sites; and 

8 (2) whether any of the sites meets the criteria 

9 for listing on the National Register of Historic 

10 Places or designation as a national historic land11 mark under— 

12 (A) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 

13 461 et seq.); or 

14 (B) the National Historic Preservation Act 

15 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). 

16 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—In conducting the study under 

17 subsection (a), the Secretary shall— 

18 (1) consider the criteria for the study of areas 

19 for potential inclusion in the National Park System 

20 under section 8(b)(2) of Public Law 91–383 (16 

21 U.S.C. 1a–5(b)(2)); and 

22 (2) consult with— 

23 (A) the Ce ́sar E. Cha ́vez Foundation; 

24 (B) the United Farm Workers Union; and 
3

•S 670 IS 

1 (C) State and local historical associations 

2 and societies, including any State historic pres3 ervation offices in the State in which the site is 

4 located. 

5 (c) REPORT.—On completion of the study, the Sec6 retary shall submit to the Committee on Resources of the 

7 House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy 

8 and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that de9 scribes— 

10 (1) the findings of the study; and 

11 (2) any recommendations of the Secretary. 

12 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

13 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

14 as are necessary to carry out this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-29-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-28-1998
<CASH>                                           9,336
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,068
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,253
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,592
<PP&E>                                          19,693
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,774
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,374
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           599
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,074
<SALES>                                         12,233
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,233
<CGS>                                           10,530
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (446)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,492)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,662)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,830)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,830)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.71)
        

</TABLE>
#### Geraldine Hopper, Respondent, v Premier Coach, Inc., et al., Defendants. Bianka Perez Vega, Nonparty Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 784]

*509Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about April 13, 2012, which granted the motion of plaintiffs current counsel to confirm the report of the Judicial Hearing Officer recommending the division of a contingency fee award between current counsel and nonparty appellant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The report of a JHO should be confirmed “whenever the findings contained therein are supported by the record and the [JHO] has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” *(Nager v Panadis,*238 AD2d 135, 135-136 [1st Dept 1997]). Here, the JHO considered the appropriate factors in apportioning the contingency fee, including the hours worked, the quality of the work and the result *(Castellanos v CBS Inc.,*89 AD3d 499 [1st Dept 2011]). Appellant former counsel points to nothing in the record that indicates the JHO overlooked or misconstrued any of the relevant facts or law. As such, the IAS court properly confirmed the recommendation. Concur — Tom, J.P, Mazzarelli, Freedman, Richter and Feinman, JJ.
#### State v. James

Case below: 184 N.C. App.-(19 June 2007)

No. 315P07

1. Def’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA06-896)

2. Def’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

3. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Allowed 07/09/07 Stay Dissolved 08/23/07

2. Denied 08/23/07

3. Denied 08/23/07