alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 01-13-00368-CR

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT HOUSTON

Cause no . 6D0516

In the 176TH District Court

of Harris County, Texas

JOE RAY ALVAREZ

Appellant

v .

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

COURT OFCRMAL APPEALS

JUL 27 2015

Abe! Acosta, Clerk

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 27 2315

Abel Acosta, Clerk

FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

PETITIO.N FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

To The Honorable Judges Of The Court Of Criminal Appeals:

Comes Now, Joe Ray Alvarez, Petitioner, and files this

motion for extension of sixty (60) days in which to file a Petition for

Discretionary Review, In support of this motion, Appellant shows the

Court the following :

I

The Petitioner was convicted in the 176TH District Court

of Harris County, Texas of the offense of AggravatedAssault in cause no.

6DD516, styled State of Texas vs. Joe Ray Alvarez. The Petitioner appealed

to the Court of Appeals First Supreme- Judicial District. The case was

affirmed on \Jg Li 1 •diQ>'0 • 7 j-j.

The present deadline for filing the Petition for

Discretionary Review is JJyji/LU S\ X0iS T'he Petitioner has not

requested any extension prior to this request.

Ill

Petitioer's request for an extension is based upon the

following facts: Petitioner was not informed of the decision of the Court
of appeals in affirming this case until l/a/\/ lo ,d0l5 • Since that

time petitioner has been attempting to gain legal representation in

this matter. His attorney on the appeal, Patti Sedita, has informed

Petitioner that she will not represent him on the Petition for

Discretionary Review.

UHEREFDRE, Petitioner prays this Court grant this motion and extend

the deadline for filing the Petition for Discretionary Review in

case no. 91 ~/l~ D03 L%' Cl to QciS^tl/S (ko^fi)

Joe Ray A1v»rez.^ro se

TDCJ-ID 1853331

A.D . Hughes

Rt. 2 Box 4400

Gatesville , Tx 76597

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

First Motion for Extension of Time to file for Petition for Discreti

onary Review has been forewarded by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, first

class to the Clerk, Christopher A. Prine, Court of Appeals for the

First District of Texas at Houston Texas, 301 Fannin Street,

Houston, Texas 77002-2066 iT^lji Joe Ray Al v^/re z , /vr a
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD WESLEY BRYAN,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

PAT GLEBE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-35747

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05147-BHS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Richard Wesley Bryan appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as second or successive. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see Wentzell v. Neven, 674 F.3d 1124,

1126 (9th Cir. 2012), and we reverse and remand.

FILED

JUL 27 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Bryan contends that his 2014 habeas petition is not second or successive to

the habeas petition he filed in 2013. We agree. Bryan’s 2013 petition challenged

sanctions imposed pursuant to a prison disciplinary proceeding, whereas Bryan’s

2014 habeas petition challenged, for the first time, his underlying conviction. 

Because different state conduct is at issue, the latter petition is not second or

successive. See Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 333 (2010) (“the phrase

‘second or successive’ must be interpreted with respect to the judgment

challenged”); Hill v. Alaska, 297 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (later petition was

not second or successive because “Hill’s claims relating to mandatory parole

challenge the calculation of his release date rather than the sentence itself”). The

state’s reliance on Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (per curiam), is

misplaced. In Burton, unlike here, both petitions attacked the same judgment. See

id. at 156. We therefore reverse the dismissal of Bryan’s habeas petition and

remand to the district court for further proceedings.

We express no opinion as to the merits of Bryan’s section 2254 habeas

petition or whether it meets the procedural requirements of section 2244(d) and

2254(b).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

2 14-35747
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18

OF THE UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ivecon Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jay D. Solomon, Chief Executive Officer and 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



/s/Jay D. Solomon

JAY D. SOLOMON

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer

Ivecon Corporation



May 12, 2008
Order entered July 27, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00554-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.C. AND Z.C.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-54259-2014

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

This appeal was abated to allow the trial court to comply with this Court’s June 11, 2015 

order to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Before the Court is the July 20, 2015

motion of Nathan Cramer for contempt for failure to comply with this Court’s order for entry of 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court signed findings of fact and conclusions of 

law on July 8, 2015. On July 24, 2015, the Court received a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, we DENY as 

moot the motion for contempt.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Kirk Wayne Worthington, * From the 104th District Court

 of Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18187B.

Vs. No. 11-15-00156-CR * July 23, 2015

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance 

with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                               76,752,738
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     95,351,926
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       95,351,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 2,180,460
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         95,351,926
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     11,321,798
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     11,328,213
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (6,415)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (6,415)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                             (6,415)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.12)
        

</TABLE>
SCPW-14-0000381 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
ANTHONY P. LOCRICCHIO, Petitioner,

vs. THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, ACTING CHIEF DISCIPLINARY

COUNSEL CHARLENE M. NORRIS, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By : Reck ten wal d, C.J ., Nak ayama, Ac oba , M cKe nna , a nd Pol lac k, JJ. )

Upon consideration of the January 26, 2014 petition for a writ of mandamus submitted by Petitioner attorney Anthony P. Locricchio, this court concludes nothing in the petition or the attached exhibits supports the conclusion that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has violated a duty owed this court, or abused the discretion delegated to it by this court to investigate the allegations of misconduct lodged against the Petitioner. See Breiner v. Sunderland , 112 Haw. 60, 64-65, 143 P.3d 1262, 1266-67 (2006) ; In re Disciplinary Bd. of the Hawai # i Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-14-0000381 30-JAN-2014 02:53 PMSupreme Court , 91 Hawai # i 363, 368-71, 984 P.2d 688, 693-96

(1999); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Hawai # i Supreme Court , 91 Hawai # i 51, 57, 979 P.2d 1077, 1083 (1999). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 30, 2014. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

Patel

v.

Franklin Resources

Order of Dismissal

Civil 10-6469 (SRC)

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

It having been reported to the Court that the above-captioned action has been

settled, and that the request for an order of dismissal is not based on a desire to adjourn or

delay the proceedings herein;

IT IS on this OF DECEMBER, 2011 14th 

ORDERED THAT:

(1) This action is hereby DISMISSED without cost and without prejudice to the

right, upon motion and good cause shown, within 60 days, to reopen this action if the settlement

is not consummated; and

(2) If any party shall move to set aside this Order of Dismissal as provided in the

first paragraph or pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in deciding such motion the

Court retains jurisdiction of the matter to the extent necessary to enforce the terms and conditions

of any settlement entered into between the parties.

 s/Stanley R. Chesler, U. S. D. J.

Case 2:10-cv-06469-SRC-MAS Document 59 Filed 12/14/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 251
EXHIBIT
32.1.








Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


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








I, 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, 2009 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,
2009                   By:  /s/ Neil
Blosch


Neil
Blosch


Chief
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 Ultra Sun Corp. and
furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
|                                     |   | Year      EndedJune 30, 2008 |      |   | Year      EndedJune 30, 2007 |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|-----------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
| EQUIVALENT      SHARES:                  |   |                         |      |   |                         |   |
| Weighted      average shares outstanding |   |                         | 2,352,484 |   |                         |   | 2,451,610 |   |
|                                     |   |                         |      |   |                         |   |   |   |
| Total      diluted shares                |   |                         | 2,366,340 |   |                         |   | 2,470,562 |   |
|                                     |   |                         |      |   |                         |   |   |   |
| Net      income                          |   | $                            | 1,931,289 |   |                         | $      | 1,886,677 |   |
|                                     |   |                         |      |   |                         |   |   |   |
| Basic      earnings per share            |   | $                            | 0.82      |   |                         | $      | 0.77 |   |
|                                     |   |                         |      |   |                         |   |   |   |
| Diluted      earnings per share          |   | $                            | 0.82      |   |                         | $      | 0.76 |   |
# table27_q4.4_size
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


(SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





In
connection with the Annual Report of MultiCell Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, W. Gerald Newmin, Chief Executive Officer and 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 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.




Dated:
      March 16, 2009By:
                /s/
      W. Gerald NewminName:
                W.
      Gerald NewminChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elliot Parrilla, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 29]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J), rendered July 7, 2012, as amended July 24, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of *21/z*to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence established the operability of the gravity knife at issue within the meaning of the statute *(see*Penal Law § 265.00 [5]). An officer who tested the knife described the manner in which it operated, and also demonstrated its operability in court *(see People v Neal,*79 AD3d 523, 524 [1st Dept 2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 799 [2011]; *People v Birth,*49 AD3d 290 [1st Dept 2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 859 [2008]).

The court properly instructed the jury that the knowledge element would be satisfied by proof establishing defendant’s knowledge that he possessed a knife in general, and did not require proof of defendant’s knowledge that the knife met the statutory definition of a gravity knife *(see Neal,*79 AD3d at 524; *People v Berrier,*223 AD2d 456 [1st Dept 1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 876 [1996]).

After sufficient inquiry, the court properly determined that a deliberating juror was not “grossly unqualified” (CPL 270.35 [1]), and it properly exercised its discretion in declining to discharge the juror, a remedy that would have necessitated a mis*518trial under the circumstances. The juror expressed a concern about the fact that she lived in the same area where, according to defendant’s testimony, his former girlfriend resided. However, upon further questioning, the juror unequivocally confirmed that she would follow the court’s instructions, and that her proximity to defendant’s ex-girlfriend’s residence would not affect the juror’s evaluation of the evidence. Thus, the record supports the conclusion that there was no basis to disqualify the juror *(see People v Mejias,*21 NY3d 73, 79 [2013]; *People v Buford,*69 NY2d 290, 298-299 [1987]). Defendant did not preserve his challenges to the manner or sufficiency of the court’s inquiry of the juror *(see People v Ocasio,*258 AD2d 303 [1st Dept 1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 975 [1999]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. The record does not support defendant’s assertions that the court’s manner of questioning was coercive, or that the juror displayed fear and anxiety that required further inquiry.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15527]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

[USCG-2004-16860]


Gulf Landing LLC Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port License 
Surrender

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT.

ACTION: License Surrender Announcement; Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration (MARAD) announces the cancellation 
of all actions related to the license to own, construct and operate a 
deepwater port issued to Gulf Landing LLC on April 29, 2005. Pursuant 
to Section 1503(h) of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended, a 
deepwater port license may remain in effect until such time as it is 
either suspended or revoked by the Secretary of Transportation or 
surrendered by the licensee. The action is taken in response to the 
applicant's decision to surrender its Deepwater Port License.

DATES: The date of surrender and cancellation of all actions related to 
this license was effective April 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket 
for this project. The docket may be viewed electronically at http://www.regulations.gov under docket number USCG-2004-16860, or in person 
at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about the Gulf 
Landing LLC Deepwater Port project, contact Ms. Yvette Fields, Office 
of Deepwater Ports and Offshore Activities at (202) 366-4839 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#164f607362627338507f737a72655672796238717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94cde2f1e0e0f1bad2fdf1f8f0e7d4f0fbe0baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 30, 2009, the Maritime 
Administration received notification from the licensee, Gulf Landing 
LLC, of the surrender of its license to own, construct and operate a 
deepwater port for a liquefied natural gas deepwater port (with 
associated anchorages and pipeline facilities) located 38 miles south 
of Cameron, Louisiana in South Cameron Block 213. Consequently, the 
Maritime Administration is terminating all activities relating to the 
licensure, construction and operation of the proposed Gulf Landing LNG 
deepwater port. Further information pertaining to this application may 
be found in the public docket (see ADDRESSES).

    Authority: 49 CFR 1.66.

    By order of the Maritime Administrator.

    Dated: June 23, 2009.
Christine Gurland,
Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-15527 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

_________________________________

 :

HOSS DAHI, : Civil Action No. 10-6297 (CCC)

 :

Plaintiff, :

v. :

 : NOTICE OF CALL FOR DISMISSAL

CLARA RIVERA PACHECO, : PURSUANT TO GENERAL RULE 41.1

MARK HENDRICKS, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, :

KIMBERLY L. FOGARTY, ESQ., CORRADO :

GIGANTE, R. WATSON, GARY HART, :

JESSIKA COLE, INFINISOURCE INC., :

Defendants. :

_________________________________ 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-captioned matter, having been pending for more

than 120 days without any proceeding having been taken therein, will be dismissed on May 4, 2012

at 10:00 a.m., against defendants: Clara Rivera Pacheco, Mark Hendricks, Alston & Bird LLP,

KimberlyL. Fogarty, Esq., Corrado Gigante, R. Watson, GaryHart, Jessika Cole, Infinisource Inc., 

unless good cause is shown with the filing of an affidavit before the return date. If said affidavit has

not been filed before the return date, counsel are required to appear before the Court, to show good

cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

WILLIAM T. WALSH, CLERK

Date: April 24, 2012 by: Jacquie Lambiase 

 Jacquie Lambiase, Deputy Clerk

cc: Hon. Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J. 

 All parties of Record

Case 2:10-cv-06297-CCC-JAD Document 40 Filed 04/24/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 482