alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20279

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JARRIETTE EURK HAWKINS, also known as Hawk,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-194-3

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jarriette Eurk Hawkins 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). Hawkins has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* 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

July 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20279 Document: 00513118625 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
No. 14-20279

2

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.

 Case: 14-20279 Document: 00513118625 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano,

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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.

 M 

arch 26, 2021

Order 

Clerk

March 26, 2021

160291-2(77)

VERNON BOWMAN, Individually and as

Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF

KELLY M. BOWMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 160291, 160292

v COA: 341640, 341663

Macomb CC: 2017-002159-NH

ST. JOHN HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL

CENTER, and ASCENSION MEDICAL GROUP 

MICHIGAN, doing business as ROMEO PLAN 

DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, and TUSHAR S. 

PARIKH, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Association for Justice to 

file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on March 24, 2021, 

is accepted for filing.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive 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 SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.




/s/
                Richard A. RappaportRichard
                A. Rappaport
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              November
                13, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Owens-Illinois
Group, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that to such officer's knowledge:



|Dated: March 16, 2005 |  | /s/STEVEN R. MCCRACKENSteven R. McCracken
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Owens-Illinois Group, Inc.
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Owens-Illinois Group, Inc. and will be retained by Owens-Illinois Group, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
No. 03-14-00713-CV 

In the Court of Appeals

for the Third Judicial District

Austin, Texas

GLENN HEGAR, COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, AND KEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellants,

V.

CGG VERITAS SERVICES (U.S.), INC.,

Appellee.

On Appeal from the 

353rd Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 

TO FILE APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b), Appellants Glenn Hegar,

Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Ken Paxton, Attorney

General of the State of Texas, request a fourteen-day extension of time to file their Reply

brief. 

ACCEPTED

03-14-00713-CV

6244085

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

7/27/2015 6:32:01 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/27/2015 6:32:01 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
2

I.

Appellants’ reply brief is due on August 10, 2015. The Appellants seek a 14-day

extension, creating a new due date of August 24, 2015. No prior extension has been

requested or granted for this filing. Appellee does not oppose this motion. 

II.

The undersigned has assumed responsibility as lead appellate counsel for

Appellants following April Farris’s recent departure from the Attorney General’s Office.

Being new to the appeal, and not having participated in the trial proceedings or the

preparation of Appellants’ opening brief, the undersigned counsel requests a brief

extension of time to analyze the trial court record and prepare a reply brief that will be

helpful to the Court.

III.

For these reasons, Appellants respectfully request that the Court grant a fourteenday extension to file their reply brief, creating a new due date of August 24, 2015.
3

Respectfully submitted,

KEN PAXTON

Attorney General of Texas

CHARLES E. ROY

First Assistant Attorney General

SCOTT A. KELLER

Solicitor General

 /s/ Joseph D. Hughes 

JOSEPH D. HUGHES

Assistant Solicitor General

State Bar No. 24007410

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)

Austin, Texas 78711-2548

[Tel.] (512) 936-1729

[Fax] (512) 474-2697

jody.hughes@texasattorneygeneral.gov

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS
4

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I spoke by telephone this morning with Amanda Taylor, counsel for Appellee, and

she stated that she is not opposed to the two-week extension of time requested.

 /s/ Joseph D. Hughes 

Joseph D. Hughes

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on July 27, 2015, a true and correct copy of this Unopposed

Motion to Extend Time to file Appellants’ Reply Brief was served via File &

ServeXpress upon the following counsel of record:

Amanda G. Taylor

MARTENS TODD LEONARD & TAYLOR

301 Congress Ave., Suite 1950

Austin, Texas 78701

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

 /s/ Joseph D. Hughes 

Joseph D. Hughes
Exhibit 31.5
CERTIFICATION
I, Marc J. Eisenberg, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 3 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ORBCOMM Inc.; and
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;
Date:August 12, 2010  /s/ Marc J. Eisenberg Marc J. Eisenberg,President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
 
 
 
1
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 440 

Recognizing the critical importance of military aviation training in the State 

of Colorado, including training conducted at the High-Altitude Army 

National Guard Aviation Training Site. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 13, 2019 

Mr. TIPTON (for himself, Mr. LAMBORN, and Mr. BUCK) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the critical importance of military aviation training in the State of Colorado, including training conducted at the High-Altitude Army National Guard Aviation Training Site. 

Whereas military aviation training in the State of Colorado 

is mission critical to the national security interests of the 

United States by ensuring the readiness of the Armed 

Forces; and 

Whereas the High-Altitude Army National Guard Aviation 

Training Site is the lone school of the Department of Defense where rotary-wing aviators in the Armed Forces 

and the militaries of foreign allies learn how to safely fly 

rotary-wing aircraft in mountainous, high-altitude environments: Now, therefore, be it 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 440 IH 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the critical importance of mili3 tary aviation training in the State of Colorado, in4 cluding training conducted at the High-Altitude 

5 Army National Aviation Training Site, to the na6 tional security interests of the United States and the 

7 readiness of the Armed Forces; and 

8 (2) directs the Clerk of the House of Represent9 atives to transmit copies of this resolution to the 

10 President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of 

11 the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief 

12 of the National Guard Bureau, the Governor of the 

13 State of Colorado, the Speaker of the Colorado 

14 House of Representatives, the President of the Colo15 rado Senate, and the Adjutant General of Colorado. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 1, 2015

Order 

Clerk

September 1, 2015

150371(67)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 150371

v COA: 314877

Muskegon CC: 12-062736-FH

CHARLES ALMANDO-MAURICE DUNBAR,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Criminal Defense Attorneys of 

Michigan to waive filing fees and extend the time for filing a brief amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on August 25, 2015, is accepted for filing.
**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 SRKP 9, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.




/s/
                Richard A. RappaportRichard
                A. Rappaport
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              November
                7, 2006
Exhibit 32.1




Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








Neil Blosch, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, of Ultra Sun Corp. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 2011 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





Dated:  May 20, 2011





By:  /s/ Neil Blosch


Principal Executive Officer


Principal Accounting Officer





* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ultra Sun Corp. and will be retained by AirWare International Corp. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the combined predecessors of the
Partnership.
 Date:
November 14, 2006
    
    /s/ JOHN B. WALKERJohn B. WalkerChief Executive Officer of EV Management LLC,general partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,general partner of EV Energy Partners, L.P.
# covid_table59_c71_state
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 2, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D17-1024

Lower Tribunal No. 16-10512

________________

Jerry Ridgeway,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles K. Johnson, Judge.

Jerry Ridgeway, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee. 

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

SUAREZ, J.

Jerry Jerome Ridgeway appeals from the summary denial of his motion to

correct credit for time served.1 We reverse.

1 A motion seeking additional credit for time served is normally brought pursuant

to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801.
Ridgeway alleges he was not given proper credit for time served in Texas

and South Carolina while on hold for transfer to Dade County on a fugitive

warrant. There is no evidence in the record before us to show Ridgeway was not

entitled to the credit for time served prior to sentencing that he alleges. But see

Morales v. State, 970 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (granting a defendant credit

for time served outside of the state of Florida on unrelated charges, when a warrant

or detainer is issued by this state, is discretionary, not mandatory). 

On appeal from a summary denial, this Court must reverse unless the postconviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See

Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), (D). Because the record now before us fails to

make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for further

proceedings. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the postconviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that

the appellant is not entitled to any relief.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnny Miller, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 904]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered October 12, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the photo array from which the complainant identified the defendant was not unduly suggestive. A photographic display is suggestive when some *729characteristic of one picture draws the viewer’s attention to it, indicating that the police have made a particular selection (see *People v Wright,*297 AD2d 391 [2002]; *People v Boria,*279 AD2d 585, 586 [2001]; *People v Robert,*184 AD2d 597 [1992]). An examination of the six-photograph array employed in this case reveals that the defendant’s photograph did not have a significantly darker background and there were no other characteristics in the photograph that would draw the viewer’s attention to the photograph. Furthermore, the defendant’s appearance and facial expression did not differ greatly from those of the men in the other photographs (see *People v Ragunauth,*24 AD3d 472 [2005]; *People v Wright, supra; People v Williams,*289 AD2d 270 [2001]). Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.2
 TASK ORDER #03 AGREEMENT
Engineering Change Requests and Enhancements
 th
    ARTICLE 1  DEFINITIONS
    ARTICLE 2  SCOPE OF WORK




---



##### 




    
    Provide a copy of all Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) describing the changes being
made to the Satellite.
    
    Provide bus to payload serial port software ICD which details the IPDR software to
serial driver interface and the payload software to serial driver interface for the
additional serial line.
    
    Power point documentation of a system block diagram of the additional payload to bus
interface.
    
    Power point documentation of the command/telemetry packet protocol interface changes
between the ground and the Satellite and between the payload to bus.
    
    Test reports and procedures associated with verification of the serial interface and
command/telementry implementation.
 ARTICLE 3  TASK ORDER CONTRACT TYPE
  ARTICLE 4  PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
  ARTICLE 5  CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT TERMS
     2




---



##### 



ARTICLE 6  OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
 vis-a-vis
  SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATIONBy:Name:
    Clint McElfishTitle:
    Corporate Contracts ManagerORBCOMM INCBy:Name:
    Christian Le BrunTitle:
    Executive Vice President, General Counsel  3
Exhibit 31.1
  SOX
302 CERTIFICATION
  I, Herb
Gover, as senior servicing officer in charge of the servicing function of
CitiMortgage, Inc., certify that:
  1. 
 I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
10-K of Citicorp Mortgage Securities Trust, Series 2008-1 (the “Exchange Act
periodic reports”);
 2.  
Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.  
Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by the report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 4.  
I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and
based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the
servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of
Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the
servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all
material respects; and
 5.  
All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset
backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material
instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this
report on Form 10-K.
 
 
 
 March
30,
2009
 
 
 By:
                /s/ Herb
      GoverName:
                Herb
      GoverTitle:
                Senior
      Vice President, CitiMortgage, Inc.Senior
      Officer in Charge of Servicing
TOL. Tho CARimingl Covat of Repeat |
80 Hosh nv FalS dais

—

O. Tho Oiskeck claw SOS OV
Abel Acost4

Fern. ORYIS LOPE PobyeR ih 83205
LID SSIS Abel Acosta, Clerk
Pack \ onit

@ vonlace PAK Kd.

MHBVASOHH, TeXS U7 368

Case © FIO-I4S5 1-5 (@®

TT vos Lote +o Give my WEY) |

Qddeess andl \o See \eL my CASE,
Peon Lovowkel {Porn Dallas cooly
Cook, MY wary of WOT, 7

loot li Ko 30 be downtd ne fact
asd Corcvisiods WHY MY pori}, mandamvs

Lots Denied Also Jor CRieninal court Of
CPpeAl « “Uno oo! God De95
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

William B . Glasscock , Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00225

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 241

- 0709

- 19 ). Memorand um Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, William B . Glasscock , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 11, 2020 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
SCWC-13-0003525

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs.

KEITH S. MEWS, 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-13-0003525; CR. NO. 11-1-1457)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Pollack, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Keith S. Mews’

Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed on June 8, 2015, is 

hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, July 21, 2015.

Keith S. Shigetomi

for petitioner

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0003525

21-JUL-2015

10:02 AM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

CYNTHIA CLIFTON,

 Respondent

 v.

JOANNE BRUSCEMI,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 74 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.