alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 10, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-11-00387-CR

____________

CHRISTOPHER REYES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 56,225

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered a plea of ―guilty‖ to the offense of aggravated assault. The trial 

court deferred adjudicating guilt and placed appellant under community supervision for a 

period of three years. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate guilt. On April 27, 

2011, the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced appellant to confinement for eight 

years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant 

filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. 
2

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of 

the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the 

right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. (Tex. Crim. App.1991). Appellant has had the opportunity to file a 

pro se response, but, as of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We 

are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response 

when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 

178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Christopher.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 31

SEMT 2013-8

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

I, Christopher J. Abate, 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 Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-8 (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 this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based
on my knowledge and 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.

In giving the certifications above, I
have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Corelogic Tax Services, LLC, Assurant, Inc., Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian, CitiMortgage,
Inc. as Master Servicer, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent.



|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2018                                                                             
|                                                                                                 
|/s/ Christopher J. Abate                                                                         
|Signature                                                                                        
|                                                                                                 
|Chairman of the Board and President
(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50434

consolidated with

No. 21-50435

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Andres Pascual-Mendez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-317-1

USDC No. 4:20-CR-562-1

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Andres Pascual-Mendez appeals his conviction and sentence under 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), along with the revocation of the term of 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 13, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50434 Document: 00516128140 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2021
No. 21-50434

c/w No. 21-50435

2

supervised release he was serving at the time of the offense. Because his 

appellate brief does not address the validity of the revocation or the 

revocation sentence, he abandons any challenge to that judgment. See Yohey 

v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

For the first time on appeal, Pascual-Mendez contends that it violates 

the Constitution to treat a prior conviction that increases the statutory 

maximum under § 1326(b)(2) as a sentencing factor, rather than an element 

of the offense. He correctly concedes that the argument is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he wishes to 

preserve it for further review. The Government has moved without 

opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time 

to file its brief.

As the Government asserts and as Pascual-Mendez concedes, the sole 

issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States 

v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the Government’s 

position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial 

question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 

F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), summary affirmance is proper.

Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and 

the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. The Government’s 

alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.

Case: 21-50434 Document: 00516128140 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2021
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION
OF CORPORATE CONTROLLER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
(the "Report") of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30,
2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada Jr., Sr. Vice President of Finance
& Corporate Controller and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,



| | 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------















| |  | /s/ Antonio
Estrada, Jr.                                 | 
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |  | Antonio
Estrada, Jr.                                     | 
| |  | Sr. Vice President of Finance & Corporate Controller and | 
| |  | Principal Financial Officer                              | 
| |  | June 14, 2012                                            |
NUMBER 13-17-00642-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE SCRAP METAL SERVICES, LLC; 

SMS ALL STAR HOLDINGS, LLC; ALL STAR METALS, LLC; 

JEFRY K. GERTLER; RICHARD A. GERTLER; AND NIKHIL SHAH

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria

Per Curiam Order

Relators Scrap Metal Services, LLC; SMS All Star Holdings, LLC; All Star Metals, 

LLC; Jefry K. Gertler; Richard A. Gertler, and Nikhil Shah filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus and motion for emergency stay in the above cause on November 20, 2017. 

Through this original proceeding, relators seek to vacate orders: (1) denying relators’ 

third amended motion to abate; (2) denying relators’ third amended motion to dismiss for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (3) denying in part relators’ special exceptions to 

plaintiff’s second amended petition; and (4) denying relators’ second amended motion to 
2

judicially notice and apply the law of Mexico. Through their motion for emergency stay, 

relators seek to stay all proceedings in the trial court including the trial of this matter which 

is set for December 4, 2017. 

The Court requests that the real party in interest, Sustainable Products Services 

LLC, file (1) a response to the motion for emergency stay, and (2) a response to the 

petition for writ of mandamus. Both responses should be filed with this Court before 5:00 

p.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

20th day of November, 2017.
Exhibit 34.4a



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (the
Company), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider (the Platform), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v),
1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the
Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts
calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with
the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.

February 4, 2016

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201

T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0307

CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ROBERT MICHAEL ZERMENO,

Defendant and Appellant

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until September 6 2023, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

August 1 2023

08/01/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0307
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

ANDREW COLLINS, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD A. COLLINS,
DECEASED

v.

MANOR CARE OF LANCASTER, PA, LLC
D/B/A MANORCARE HEALTH
SERVICES

- LANCASTER, HCR MANOR CARE, INC., HCR HEALTHCARE, LLC, HCR HEALTHCARE II, LLC, HCR HEALTHCARE III, LLC, MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., MANOR CARE, INC., LANCASTER GENERAL REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC.,
D/B/A LANCASTER REHABILITATION HOSPITAL, LLP, CRH OF LANCASTER, LLC, AND LANCASTER GENERAL

HEALTH

PE TITION OF: MANOR CARE OF LANCASTER, PA, LLC D/B/A
MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES

LANCASTER, HCR MANOR CARE, INC., HCR HEALTHCARE, LLC, HCR HEALTHCARE II, LLC, HCR HEALTHCARE III, LLC, MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., MANOR CARE, INC. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 550 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
the Unpublished Judgment Order and
Order of the Superior Court at No. 762 MDA 2014 entered on June 18, 2015, affirming the Order of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas at No.

12

- 15908 entered on April 4, 2014

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is GRANTED

. The Superior Court’s order is VACATED , and the matter is[ 550 MAL 2015 ]

- 2

REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc.

,
___ A.3d ___, 2016 WL 5630669 (Pa. Sept. 28, 2016).
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of OrthoLogic Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), each of, James M. Pusey, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Sherry
A. Sturman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his or her
respective 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. Date May 9, 2005 /s/ James M. Pusey
James M. Pusey
President and Chief Executive Officer /s/ Sherry A. Sturman
Sherry A. Sturman
Chief Financial Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to OrthoLogic Corp. and will be retained by OrthoLogic Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report (the "Report") of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur
L. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                                         and result of operations of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|By | /s/
    Arthur L. Smith     | 
|-- | --------------------------- | 
|   | Arthur
    L. Smith         | 
|   | President
    and           | 
|   | Chief
    Executive Officer | 
|   | February
    26, 2016       |
#### Dallinger *v.*Rapallo.*

*(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.*

March 2, 1883.)

1. Taxation—Non-Resident Executors—Assessment oe Personal Property Held by.

The General Statutes of Massachusetts, *c.*11, § 12, próvida that property-held by an executor residing out of the state, in trust to pay the income to persons within the state, is taxable to the latter, but does not authorize the taxation of personal property in the hands of an executor, residing out of the state, which is part of the estate of his testator and held by him in trust to pay the income for life to inhabitants of the state, but is not shown to be itself in the state.

2. Same.

The statute of 1878, *c.*189, § 2, has for its only object to amend the provision of chapter 11, § 12, Gen. St., in the single point, that after the expiration of three j'ears from the appointment of the executor, the property, whether distributed or not, should be assessed according to the provisions cited above.

*J. W. Hammond,*for plaintiff.

*L. S. Dabney,*for defendant.

Before Gray and Lowell, JJ.

*

 See S. C. 14 Fed. Rep. 32.

Gray, Justice.

Since the decision in October last, sustaining the defendant’s demurrer, the plaintiff, by leave of the court, has amended his declaration, so as to show that, among other bequests made by the will under which the defendant was appointed and acted as executor, the testator gave to each of three persons, who at the time of the probate and ever since were inhabitants of Cambridge, the income for life of a sum of $20,000, to be set apart and invested by the executor, and the principal, after the death of the beneficiary for life, to be paid to other persons who are not shown to be inhabitants of Massachusetts; and that the personal property of the testator coming to the hands of the executor was sufficient to provide for these three bequests. The case has now been argued upon a demurrer to the amended declaration.

We are of opinion that the facts thus alleged and admitted do not vary the result; that neither the seventh clause of the General Stat*435utos, *c.*11, § 12, nor the statute of 1878, *c.*189, § 2, authorizes the assessment, to an executor residing out of the state, of an annual tax upon, or by reason of, personal property which is part of the estate of his testator, and is held by him in trust to pay the income for life to inhabitants of the state, hut is not shown to be itself within the state; and that the whole object and effect of the later statute are to amend the earlier one in the single point, that, after the expiration of throe years from the appointment of the executor, the property, whether distributed or not, should he assessed according to the provisions of the fifth clause of the General Statutes, c. 11, § 12; and by that clause property held by an executor residing out of the state, in trust to pay the income to persons within the state, is taxable to the latter only.

Demurrer sustained, and judgment for the defendant.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MARCH 1, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-10254

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-01372-CV-T-26-EAJ

HOME DEPOT USA, INC.,

a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellee,

versus

AMORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

a Florida corporation,

Defendant-CrossDefendant-CounterClaimant-Appellant,

DAVID BARRON LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC.,

a Florida corporation,

Defendant-CrossClaimant-CounterClaimant-Appellant.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(March 1, 2010)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this case, the district court, following a bench trial, found for plaintiff

Home Depot on its claim for declaratory relief and against defendants Amore

Construction and David Barron Land Development on their counterclaims for

breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and negligent

misrepresentation. After hearing oral argument of counsel in defendants' appeal,

we agree with the district court, for the reasons stated in its dispositive order of

December 15, 2008, that the defendants' counterclaims lack merit.

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 August 8, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40136 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. RAMIRO DONACIANO GOMEZ-RAMIREZ Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-1270-1 Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ramiro Donaciano GomezRamirez 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 appellant's motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and thejudgment ofthe district court is AFFIRMED.