alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JAVIER M. LOZANO §

APPELLANT §

VS. § No. 03-14-

THE STATE OF TEXAS §

RESPONDENT §

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

NOV 13 2015

Abe! Acosta, Clerk

MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

COMES NOW, JAVIER M. LOZANO, APPELLANT in the above styled and numbered

cause in an attempt to recieve an extention of time to file his Petition for

Discretionary Review and would show the Court the following in supprot;

1) Petitioner has never asked for an extention in this matter and is not

doing so now to delay the Court in any way.

2) Petitioner belives that the scope of his cause will require numerous

visits to the unit law library,which is sub-standard at best,which will add

to the hardship he faces in doing his own PDR.

3) Petitioner is not a student of the law and is not readily able to

decifer the avenues of law that his cause will require him to be proficiant

in and well versed in "legalize" and would ask the Court's indulgence in

his submission.

PRAYER

PETITIONER PRAYS that this Court will review his motion and grant him

the time extention asked for.

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Z^.fi^StPSl

JAVIER M. LOZANO

Abel Acosta, Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A TRUE COPY OF THE FOREGOING WAS PLACED IN THE

T D C J MAILBOX WITH FIRST CLASS POSTAGE TO BOTH THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

P.O. BOX 12308 AUSTIN,TEXAS AND ALSO TO LISA McMINN STATfi PROS.ATTY. P.O. BOX

13046 AUSTIN,TEXAS ON THIS THE °JJ^ DAY OF aJo U>6sn£^<l^ ,2015.

JAVIER M. LOZANO

CC STATE PROS.ATTY

PERSONAL FILE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JAVIER M. LOZANO . §

PETITIONER §

VS § No- 03-14-

THE STATE OF TEXAS §

RESPONDENT §

ORDER

THE COURT ON THIS DATE HEARD THE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF

TIME TO FILE HIS PDR AND THE COURT WILL [ ] GRANT, [] DENY, SAID MOTION. THE

DUE DATE FOR HIS PRD WILL BE ON THE ^f^>K£ OF A&&b(/US*f ,2015,or if

denied will remain November 23,2015.

ORDERED ON THIS THE DAY OF ,2015

Judge Presiding
COURT OP CRIMINAL APPEALS

JAVIER M. LOZANO §

PETITIONER §

VS § No. 03-14-00107-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS §

RESPONDENT §

ORDER

THE COURT ON THIS DATE HEARD THE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF

TIME TO FILE HIS PDR AND THE COURT KILL [ } GRANT/ [] DENY/ SAID MOTION. THE

DUE DATE FOR HIS PRD MILL BE ON TBB.P)HSftY OF -t~cA UM^f ,2015,or if

denied will remain November 23#2015.• >

ORDERED ON THIS THE DAY OF #2015

Jjudge {Presiding

PLEASE RETURN THIS COPY OF ORDER TO PETITIONER.

1
**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 10, 2008 | s/                JOHN B. WALKER                             |
|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                   | John                B. Walker                                |
|                                   | Chief                Executive Officer of EV Management LLC, |
|                                   | general                partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,        |
|                                   | general                partner of EV Energy Partners, L.P.   |

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15757]



[[Page 31984]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,653]


American Appliance Products, Inc., 1129 Myatt Boulevard, Madison, 
TN; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 27, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of American 
Appliance Products, Inc., Madison, Tennessee.
    The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition 
(TA-W-70,240) filed on May 20, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of June 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15757 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. William H. Walls

V. : Criminal No. 2:10cr876

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

TERJEK EDWARDS

This matter having been opened to the Court by Paul J. Fishxnan, United States

Attorney for the District ofNew Jersey (Sharon Ashe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, appearing), and

defendant Teriek Edwards (Chester Keller, appearing), for an order granting a continuance ofthe

proceedings in the above-captioned matter for a period ofsixty days, from July 25, 2013, to

September 24, 2013, allow the parties to conduct plea negotiations and attempt to finalize a plea

agreement, and the defendants being aware that they have the right to have this matter brought to

trial within seventy (70) days of date the defendants appeared before a judicial officer ofthis

court and that a continuance shall serve to delay a trial in this matter, and the defendants through

their attorneys having waived such rights and consented to the continuance; and fQr good and

sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should be continued for

the following reasons:

1, The defendants are involved in plea negotiations with the government,

which, ifsuccessful, would render trial ofthis matter unnecessary.

2. Defendants have consented to the aforementioned continuance.
3. The grant of a continuance will likely conserve judicial resources.

4. Pursuant to Title 1 8 of the United Slates Code. Section 3 1 61 (h)(7), the

ends ofjustice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and

the defendant in a speedy trial.

5. This is the thirteenth continuance

WhEREFORE, ii 2013.

ORDERED that the proceedings in the abpiioned matter are continued tbr

the sixty (60) day period from July 25, 2013, to September24. 2013;

iT IS FURTHER ORDIRED that the period between from July 25, 2013, to

September 24, 2013, shall be excludable in computing Trial Act of 1974.

Chester Keller

l

Attorney for Terick Edv 9fls

Sharon

%1L

Ashe

4%

Assistant United States Attorney

fi.

Ronneli Wilson

Chief, OCDETF and Narcotics Division

t by the parties.

H. WALLS

United States District Judge
# table131_q14.5_state
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 772 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 772

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 19, 2019.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5377) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to modify the limitation on deduction of State and local taxes, and for 
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee 
on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The 
bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

___________________________________

 :

R&D Circuits, Inc., : Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo

: Civil Action No. 11-172 (SDW)

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 : 

CONECTFLEX TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, : 

et al., : 

:

Defendants. :

___________________________________ :

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff, R&D Circuits,

Inc. (Plaintiff”) to remand the pending action to state court (Docket Entry 6) upon notice to

defendants, ConectFlex Technologies,LLC and MauriceBailey(collectively“Defendants”), and the

Court having considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the remand motion

and having heard the argument of the parties, and for the reasons set forth on the record on April 4,

2011, and for good cause shown;

IT IS on this 4 day of April 2011, th

RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action to the Superior Court

of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, (Docket Entry 6), be DENIED.

The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date hereof to file objections.

s/Madeline Cox Arleo 

MADELINE COX ARLEO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:11-cv-00172-SDW-MCA Document 24 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 176
cc: Hon. Susan D. Wigenton, U.S.D.J.

Clerk of the Court

All Parties

File

Case 2:11-cv-00172-SDW-MCA Document 24 Filed 04/04/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 177
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1022. HAMM v. KIDD et al.

Appellant Earl Hamm has filed a motion to withdraw appeal, stating that

settlement agreements have been reached. Hamm states further that he “moves to

withdraw the present Appeal in its entirety, with no matter being left before the

Court.”

Upon consideration of said motion, it is ordered that the motion is hereby

GRANTED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

07/08/2015

July 08, 2015
#### LIGHTGUARD SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPOT DEVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2012-1572.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 7, 2013.

Adam P. McMillen, Watson Rounds, PC, of Reno, NV, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Michael D. Rounds and Steven A. Caloiaro.

Steven D. Hemminger, Alston and Bird, LLP, of Menlo Park, CO, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was Xavier M. Brandwajn.

*977MOORE, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Filed 7/21/15 P. v. Ivy CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PHILLIP ANTHONY IVY,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G050942

 (Super. Ct. No. 98WF1237)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, 

Gary S. Paer, Judge. Affirmed.

John E. Edwards, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *
2

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Phillip Anthony Ivy appeals from the trial court’s order denying 

his petition to recall his prison sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, 

added by Proposition 36. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting we 

review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders),

appointed counsel identified potential issues to assist us in our independent review. Ivy 

was granted 30 days to file written arguments in his own behalf, but did not do so.

We have examined the entire record and counsel’s Wende/Anders brief. 

After considering the entire record, we have found no reasonably arguable issue. 

(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

In 1998, Ivy’s girlfriend, Kelly Baird, called 911 and reported that Ivy had 

beaten her up and choked her. Officers were dispatched to the apartment that Ivy and 

Baird shared, and found Baird extremely distraught. The officers observed bruises on 

Baird’s upper arms and on a thigh, and saw marks on her neck. Baird told one of the 

officers, inter alia, that Ivy had hit her, bit her, and dragged her across the room. She 

stated Ivy strangled her more than 10 times and strangled her so hard that she could not 

breathe. 

A jury found Ivy guilty of one count of willfully inflicting corporal injury 

in violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced Ivy to 

a prison term of 25 years to life under the “Three Strikes” law. In 2003, a panel of this 

court affirmed the judgment of conviction. 

In November 2013, Ivy filed a petition for recall of sentence under Penal 

Code section 1170.126. The trial court denied the petition. Ivy appealed. 
3

ANALYSIS

We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under 

Wende and Anders, and we find no reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Ivy himself has 

not raised any issues for our review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 120, 124.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

FYBEL, J.

WE CONCUR:

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

MOORE, J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6489

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PATRICK NATHAN BROXTON, a/k/a, Nique,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:17-cr-00352-PX-1)

Submitted: February 24, 2022 Decided: February 28, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Charles Burnham, BURNHAM & GOROKHOV PLLC, Washington, D.C., 

for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, Amy L.

Schwartz, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Nathan Broxton filed a motion for compassionate release, pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which the district court denied on October 16, 2020. Broxton 

subsequently filed an emergency motion for reconsideration and a supplemental motion 

for reconsideration of his motion for compassionate release. The court denied the motions. 

Broxton appeals the denial of these motions, arguing that the district court failed to consider 

his postconviction rehabilitation evidence. We affirm. 

“[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to motions under § 3582,” 

because § 3582 motions are “criminal in nature.” United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 

235 n.* (4th Cir. 2010). And, there are no federal statutes or rules that authorize a motion 

for reconsideration in the criminal sentencing context. See id. at 235-36. We therefore 

conclude that the district court erred in construing Broxton’s postjudgment motions as 

motions for reconsideration rather than renewed motions for compassionate release. 

However, the error was not prejudicial because the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.)

(stating that a district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Broxton’s motions failed to 

demonstrate sufficient change in his situation to warrant compassionate release, and the 

court sufficiently explained its reasons for the denial in light of its incorporation of its 

original findings on Broxton’s initial compassionate release motion. See United States v. 

High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for 

denial of compassionate release motion). 
3

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31

       Statement Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
         By Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
       Regarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings


I, Steven N. Bronson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
September 30, 2004;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

        a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
        material information relating to the registrant is made known to me by
        others, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
        being prepared;

        b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
        and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
        this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

        c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
        effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my
        evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the registrant's board of directors:

        a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
        controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
        record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified
        for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal
        controls; and

        b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
        employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
        controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date:  February 22, 2005.

                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Robin Young
                                 ----------------------
                                 Robin Young
                                 Chief Executive Officer

May 20, 2009

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

The undersigned officer of Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Ben Choi
                                 ----------------------
                                 Ben Choi
                                 Chief Executive Officer

May 20, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

BRYAN E. FISCHER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS USA,

INC.,

 Defendant.

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil No. 10-6792 (JBS/AMD)

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court upon Plaintiff’s

motion to file an amended complaint [Docket Item 15]; for the

reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion of today’s date; and for

good cause shown;

IT IS this 15th day of May, 2012 hereby

ORDERED that the Clerk shall REOPEN this case upon the

docket; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended

complaint is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing a

revised motion for leave to file an amended complaint within 21

days of the entry of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall again CLOSE this case upon the

docket.

 s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Chief U.S. District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-06792-JBS-AMD Document 20 Filed 05/16/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 574