alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 26, 2018. 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, December 26, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0208. MARILYN E. GOODRICH v. STUART J. PADOVE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 18A1088
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

HAROLD L FLOYD,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 217 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2448-19T3

BOROUGH OF BRIELLE,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

836 RIVERVIEW DRIVE, LLC

and RON DANA, individually,

Defendants-Appellants.

___________________________

Argued telephonically July 13, 2020 –

Decided August 21, 2020

Before Judges Suter and Natali.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. 

C-000146-19.

Nicole B. Dory argued the cause for appellants 

(Connell Foley LLP, attorneys; Kevin J. Coakley, of 

counsel; Nicole B. Dory, of counsel and on the briefs, 

Michael J. Affrunti on the briefs).

Ben A. Montenegro argued the cause for respondent 

(Montenegro, Thompson, Montenegro & Genz, PC,

attorneys; Ryan M. Amberger, on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-2448-19T3

PER CURIAM

The parties have advised the court this matter has been amicably resolved 

and have stipulated to the dismissal of this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is 

dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cleon Watson, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 920]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated January 31, 2005 *(People v Watson,*14 AD3d 721 [2005]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 2, 2002.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz, 2*NY3d 277 [2004]). Krausman, J.E, Mastro, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 96-20285

_____________________________________

PETROLEOS MEXICANOS,

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

VERSUS

AMTRADE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-95-1070)

______________________________________________________
December 9, 1996 Before WISDOM, DAVIS and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: 1

Our review of the record and the briefs in this case leads us

to conclude that the district court correctly granted summary

judgment in favor of Petroleos Mexicanos. Amtrade International

failed to demonstrate that the prom issory note or the settlement

agreement was ambiguous and the district court properly refused to

consider parole evidence.

AFFIRMED.2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40927 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CORNELIO HERNANDEZ-GURUSCIATA, also known as Cornelio Hernandez, also known as Cornelio Hernandez-Gurugeinte, also known as Leonel Lopez-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-226

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Cornelio Hernandez-Gurusciata raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, 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 20, 2012

d1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145565

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145565

COA: 307732

Wayne CC: 02

- 014810

- FH

ELIZABETH LLOYD,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 8, 2012 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).
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Jerry M. Kennelly, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of Riverbed Technology, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained
in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Riverbed Technology, Inc.



|                    |  |  |  |                                                                                      
|------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: July 29, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Jerry M. Kennelly                                                                
|                    |  |  |  | Jerry M. Kennelly President and Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

I, Randy S. Gottfried, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Riverbed Technology, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Riverbed Technology, Inc.



|                    |  |  |  |                                                                                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: July 29, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Randy S. Gottfried                                                                 
|                    |  |  |  | Randy S. Gottfried Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 has been provided to Riverbed Technology, Inc. and will be retained by Riverbed Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to
which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### CONNER v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

No. 111.

District Court, D. Tennessee, at Knoxville.

Jan. 4, 1941.

Poore, Kramer & Cox, of Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Cates, Smith & Long, of Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant.

TAYLOR, District Judge.

This is before me again on defendant’s motion to strike the second count of the complaint.

The motion is well taken, since there is again a commingling of common law and statutory negligence. To restate a ground of negligence does not add to the pleading, even if the rules permitted a commingling of grounds.

Let the declaration be amended to meet the objection, if the amendment is filed within the week of January 6, 1941.
* 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. 97-40725

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERASMO FERNANDEZ, also known as Eddie,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:94-CR-3-6

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1998

Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Erasmo Fernandez, federal prisoner #64973-079, appeals from

the denial of his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Fernandez’s motion for appointment of

counsel is DENIED.

Fernandez contends that amendments 484 and 516 to the

Sentencing Guidelines should be applied retroactively to his

case. Fernandez raises his contention regarding amendment 484

for the first time on appeal; accordingly, our review is for
No. 97-40725

-2-

plain error. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.2d 160, 162-64

(5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). Amendment 484 became effective before

Fernandez was sentenced. Section 3582(c)(2) provides relief only

in the event of certain enumerated post-sentencing amendments to

the guidelines. Fernandez has not demonstrated error, plain or

otherwise, because the district court did not reduce his sentence

pursuant to the amendment.

Fernandez has failed to brief adequately his contention that

amendment 516 should have been applied to reduce his sentence. 

We do not excuse his failure to brief the issue; we therefore do

not consider the issue. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.2d 523, 525 (5th

Cir. 1995). This appeal is frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 15, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NOS. 14-20-00594-CR and 14-20-00595-CR

IN RE MIGUEL SAENZ, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

405th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 14CR3080 and 14CR3117

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 31, 2020, relator Miguel Saenz filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); 

see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to (1) compel the 

Honorable Jared Robinson, presiding judge of the 405th District Court of 

Galveston County, to rule on various motions relator alleges he has filed, and to 

issue updated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and (2) compel John D. 
2

Kinard, the District Clerk for Galveston County, to file documents that are 

allegedly missing into the record for trial court cause numbers 14CR3080 and 

14CR3117. It is evident from relator’s petition that the matters for which he seeks 

relief all relate to applications for writ of habeas corpus that relator has filed with 

the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure.1

We have no jurisdiction to grant the relief with respect to relator’s article 

11.07 applications for writ of habeas corpus. See Padieu v. Court of Appeals of 

Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117–18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (indicating that 

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction when an article 

11.07 application is pending). We have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in 

criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under article 11.07. In re McAfee, 

53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). 

Should an applicant find it necessary to complain about the processing of 

application for writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure or about an action or inaction of the convicting court, the applicant may 

seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Benson v. Dist. 

Clerk, 331 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 718.

Further, this court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over district clerks 

unless it is shown that issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. 

See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(a), (b) (Supp.); In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 

(Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding). Relator has not shown that 

1 Relator’s petition states that the Court of Criminal Appeals has dismissed his applications for 

writ of habeas corpus, but that he has filed motions for rehearing, to reinstate, and for en banc hearing.
3

the issuance of a writ against the district clerk, John D. Kinard, is necessary to 

enforce this court’s jurisdiction.

For these reasons, we dismiss relator’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Bourliot.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
July 16, 2015

Twelfth Court of Appeals

1517 W Front St Ste 354

Tyler TX 75702-7854

Re: Eric Bartolo

 12-14-00222-CR

To The Honorable Clerk of the Court:

Please find enclosed a copy of the letter sent to my client regarding his right to file a PDR along 

with a copy of the certified return receipt showing the mailing of the same. 

Sincerely,

/s/Austin Reeve Jackson

ACCEPTED

12-14-00222-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

7/16/2015 10:44:01 AM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/16/2015 10:44:01 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk

July 09, 2015

Eric Bartolo

Inmate 01945583

Bradshaw Unit

PO Box 9000

Henderson, TX 75653-9000

Re: Opinion

 

Mr. Bartolo: 

Please find enclosed a copy of opinion issued by the Court of Appeals in your case. The Court 

has affirmed your conviction.

Should you desire to do so, you do have the right to file a pro se Petition for Discretionary 

Review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. If you decide to pursue that option you must file your 

petition prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of the court’s opinion.

I would be happy to address any questions or concerns you have if you will simply let me know. 

Sincerely,

Austin Reeve Jackson
The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2167

___________

Ruth M. Lang, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri

Washington University School of *

Medicine; Robert Lee, Ph.D., * [UNPUBLISHED]

Supervisor, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: March 5, 1998

 Filed: March 20, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ruth M. Lang appeals from the final judgment entered in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granting summary judgment in favor 1

of defendants, Lang&s former employer and supervisor, in Lang&s employment

discrimination action. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties& briefs, we

conclude summary judgment was proper. Lang did not rebut defendants& evidence that
-2-

she was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, including her

insubordination and her disrespectful and inappropriate behavior, and not because of

her age or disability. See Palmer v. Circuit Court, 117 F.3d 351, 352 (7th Cir. 1997)

(unacceptable employee conduct precipitated by mental illness is not protected under

ADA), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 893 (1998); Maddox v. University of Tenn., 62 F.3d

843, 847-48 (6th Cir. 1995) (same); Tart v. Hill Behan Lumber Co., 31 F.3d 668, 671

(8th Cir. 1994) (federal employment discrimination decisions are authoritative under

Missouri Human Rights Act); Nelson v. Boatmen&s Bancshares, Inc., 26 F.3d 796, 801

(8th Cir. 1994) (claimant has burden to prove age discrimination was true reason for

termination); Miner v. Bi-State Dev. Agency, 943 F.2d 912, 913-14 (8th Cir. 1991)

(insubordination constitutes nondiscriminatory reason to terminate employee).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10463 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Jose Salazar**

**- Sanchez,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 169

- 1

Before **Smith, Dennis,**  and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Salazar

Sanchez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Salazar

- Sanchez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected

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

**. R** 

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

### FILED December 8, 2022 Ly le W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10463 Document: 00516571797 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2022No. 22

- 10463

2 therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue fo r appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.**  42.2

. However, we note that, although Salazar

- Sanchez pled guilty to an offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841, the written judgment incorrectly cites 21 U.S.C. § 846. Accordingly, we **REMAND** for correction of the clerical error in the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Proced ure 36. See United States v. Cooper , 979 F.3d 1084, 1088

- 89 (5th Cir. 2020). Case: 22-10463 Document: 00516571797 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2022
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1275
In Re: PATRICK J. MUHAMMAD, Petitioner.

No. 07-1291
In Re: PATRICK J. MUHAMMAD, Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus.

(8:05-mc-00484; 1:06-cv-03444-CCB) Submitted: August 17, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick J. Muhammad, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated mandamus petitions, Patrick J. Muhammad requests that this court issue two orders directing the United States District Court for the District of Maryland to act. First, Muhammad asks that this court order the district court to vacate its order disbarring Muhammad from the practice of law before that court (No. 07-1275). Muhammad further asks this court to order the district court to enjoin the Maryland Court of Appeals from enforcing its order disbarring Muhammad from the practice of law in Maryland (No. 07-1291). Because we conclude that Muhammad is not entitled to mandamus relief, we deny both petitions. This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, see Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), or to review state court orders, see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Thus, to the extent that the relief Muhammad seeks would require us to review the Maryland Court of Appeals’ disbarment order, relief is not available by way of mandamus.We also deny Muhammad’s request for an order directing the district court to vacate its order of disbarment. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and no other means to seek the requested relief . In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.- 3 - 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mu hammad has not established he is entitled to the relief sought, as he fails to establish the requisite extraordinary circumstances or clear entitlement to relief. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petitions for writs of mandamus. We further deny as moot the pending motions to expedite adjudication of these petitions and for an emergency stay of enforcement of the district court’s order of dis barment. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00300-CV

Kenneth W. Eilers, Appellant

v.

Central Texas Bank, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF FAYETTE COUNTY, 155TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2000V-034-A, HONORABLE DAN R. BECK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This Court abated this appeal in 2001 after receiving notice of a related bankruptcy.

See Tex. R. App. P. 8.1, 8.2. After the abatement, no party to this appeal sought reinstatement. See

Tex. R. App. P. 8.3. We have now been informed that the bankruptcy case related to this appeal is

closed and, therefore, have reinstated the appeal.

On October 27, 2016, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to the parties that this

appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless a status report was filed on or before

November 7, 2016, that provided reason to retain this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). To date,

no response has been filed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 
__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Field and Bourland

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: April 7, 2017

2