alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 3, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00661-CV 

GREGORIO SANTIZO, Appellant 

V. 

ELSY E. SANTIZO, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-15526-S 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, and Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated January 21, 2014, we notified 

appellant the time for filing his brief had expired. We directed appellant to file both his brief and 

an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to file his brief and an 

extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, 

appellant has not filed his brief, an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the Court 

regarding the status of his brief. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b)(c). 

 130661F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

GREGORIO SANTIZO, Appellant 

No. 05-13-00661-CV V. 

ELSY E. SANTIZO, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-15526-S. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee ELSY E. SANTIZO recover her costs of this appeal from 

appellant GREGORIO SANTIZO. 

Judgment entered April 3, 2014 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001088211
<NAME>                        NEWSGURUS.COM, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                         JUL-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                           SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                      1
<CASH>                                                          57,236
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    1,205
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                58,441
<PP&E>                                                           3,687
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   1,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 199,249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           31,087
<BONDS>                                                        200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                         9,290
<OTHER-SE>                                                    (41,128)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   199,249
<SALES>                                                          1,517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 1,517
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                50,215
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (48,698)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (48,698)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   (0.01)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,600)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     0
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------


     The  undersigned,  a member  of the Board of  Directors  or an  officer  of
MIDAMERICAN  ENERGY  COMPANY,  an  Iowa  corporation  (the  "Company"),   hereby
constitutes  and appoints  Douglas L.  Anderson and Paul J. Leighton and each of
them, as his/her true and lawful  attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of
substitution  and  resubstitution,  for  and in  his/her  stead,  in any and all
capacities,  to sign on his/her behalf the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for
the fiscal year ending  December 31, 2003 and to execute any amendments  thereto
and to file the same,  with all  exhibits  thereto,  and all other  documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and applicable
stock  exchanges,  with the full power and  authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing necessary or advisable to all intents and purposes as he/she
might or could do in  person,  hereby  ratifying  and  confirming  all that said
attorney-in-fact  and agent, or his/her substitute or substitutes,  may lawfully
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Executed as of February 9, 2004.



/s/  Jack L. Alexander                      /s/  Todd M. Raba
----------------------------                ------------------------
JACK L. ALEXANDER                           TODD M. RABA



/s/  Brian K. Hankel                        /s/ Thomas B. Specketer
----------------------------                ------------------------
BRIAN K. HANKEL                             THOMAS B. SPECKETER
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3173 

To amend section 42 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 

importation and shipment of certain species of carp. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 10, 2009 

Mrs. BIGGERT (for herself, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mrs. BONO

MACK, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. DENT, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. 

LANCE, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. 

KIRK, Mr. LEE of New York, and Mr. CULBERSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 42 of title 18, United States Code, to 

prohibit the importation and shipment of certain species 

of carp. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Asian Carp Prevention 

5 and Control Act’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3173 IH

1 SEC. 2. ADDITION OF SPECIES OF CARP TO THE LIST OF IN2 JURIOUS SPECIES THAT ARE PROHIBITED 

3 FROM BEING IMPORTED OR SHIPPED. 

4 Section 42(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 

5 amended by inserting ‘‘of the bighead carp of the species 

6 Hypophthalmichthys nobilis;’’ after ‘‘Dreissena 

7 polymorpha;’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Walter Rhodes, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 355]

Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Czajka, J.), rendered February 5, 1997, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

In December 1996, defendant was arraigned before County Court, represented by the Public Defender’s office which continued representation through a waiver of indictment, entry of a plea and sentencing. Upon the entry of the plea, County Court advised both the People and defendant that despite their agreed-upon sentence of incarceration of 2 to 4 years, it would not be bound by that agreement.

At sentencing, a complete presentence investigation report was not available to County Court due to defendant’s lack of cooperation. Defense counsel did not move to vacate the plea, provide any explanation concerning defendant’s lack of cooperation with the Probation Department or request an adjournment of the sentencing. The court imposed a sentence of 3V2 to 7 years.

Upon this appeal, defendant is again represented by the Public Defender’s office which asserts that since there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised, it should be relieved from representing defendant *(see, People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979, *lv denied*67 NY2d 650). Defendant has not submitted a *pro se*brief.

Where nonfrivolous arguments for reversal or modification of a defendant’s conviction exist and appellate counsel submits a brief requesting to be relieved of his or her assignment, a denial of the defendant’s constitutional right to effective assistance of appellate counsel is manifest *(People v Moore,*239 AD2d 708; *People v Spinks,*234 AD2d 985). Without determining whether the filing of an *Anders*brief *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738) by the Public Defender’s office at the appellate level, after *845having represented a defendant at the trial level, is an inherent conflict of interest, we reiterate the caution propounded by Chief Judge Fuld in *People v Emmett*(25 NY2d 354) that “[t]here is no substitute for the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel. Experience has demonstrated that they not infrequently advance contentions which might otherwise escape the attention of judges of busy appellate courts, no matter how conscientiously and carefully those judges read the records before them” {id., at 356).

Concluding that it is necessary that independent counsel take a fresh look at this proceeding so as to assess whether any nonfrivolous issues, including a claim of ineffective assistance in connection with the representation of defendant before the sentencing court, should be raised, we hereby relieve defense counsel of this assignment *(see, People v Casiano,*67 NY2d 906).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DAVID NAVOR ANDRADE PEREZ, AKA 

David Andrade, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-50044 

D.C. No. 8:18-cr-00100-JVS-2 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

David Navor Andrade Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 192-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction 

for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C § 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(A)(viii), and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). We have 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 25 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-50044 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Andrade Perez contends that the district court erred in concluding that his 

policy-based objections to the methamphetamine guideline did not support a 

downward variance, and failed to explain adequately this decision under Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B). As an initial matter, Andrade Perez’s 

sentence was driven by the career offender guideline rather than the 

methamphetamine guideline. In any event, Andrade Perez’s arguments fail. The

district court acknowledged its discretion to vary from the Guidelines but

permissibly declined to do so because it did not agree that the methamphetamine 

guideline was too harsh. See United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (district court may vary from the Guidelines based on a policy 

disagreement but is not obligated to do so where it does not have such a 

disagreement). The district court did not violate Rule 32(i)(3)(B) because Andrade

Perez’s challenge to the methamphetamine guideline was not a factual objection to 

the presentence report within the meaning of Rule 32. See United States v. 

Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 2009). Finally, the district court

sufficiently explained the sentence, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 

(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively 

reasonable, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
CLERK OF THE SUPREME CouRT 

ELIZABETH A. ROW 

BY: 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ASHLY SLOAN-BRINKLEY, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

AMAL SRIVASTAVA, 

Respondent. 

No. 83083 

FILE 

JAN 2 4 2022 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

Cause appearing, appellant's motion for a voluntary dismissal 

of this appeal is granted. This appeal is dismissed. NRAP 42(b). 

It is so ORDERED. 

cc: Hon. Sandra A. Unsworth, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Margaret M. Crowley, Settlement Judge 

Woodburn & Wedge 

Kathleen T. Breckenridge 

Viloria, Oliphant, Oster & Aman L.L.P. 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

Sl1PREME COUR I. 

or 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

- 0 3 2 2
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Poseidis,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB/A  for the  period  ended  August  31,  2005 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John J.
McGovern,  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     1) The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) 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: September 13, 2006        /s/John J. McGovern
                                -------------------------------------
                                John J. McGovern
                                Executive Vice President and
                                Chief Financial Officer






---------------------------------
This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Polymer Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 29,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Willis C. Moore, III, 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 to my knowledge:



|Date: March 11, 2008 |  | /s/WILLIS C. MOORE, IIIWillis C. Moore, III Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---



QuickLinks
* 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 April 20, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60535 Conference Calendar

JAMES FILLIP MOATS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNKNOWN FINCHER, Dr., Dentist at Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility Dental Clinic; UNKNOWN JENNINGS, Medical Supervision for Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:03-CV-398-M-A

-------------------- Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James Fillip Moats, Alabama prisoner # 162146, has filed a motion in this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. Moats filed a pro se civil rights complaint in Mississippi after allegedly being denied dental and eye care while temporarily housed in a Mississippi Correctional Facility. The district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge (MJ) to dismiss Moats’s complaint withoutNo. 04-60535 -2- prejudice until he is free to return to prosecute his complaint within the jurisdiction of the Mississippi courts and to suspend the statute of limitations until such time as Moats is released from confinement outside Mississippi. After filing a notice of appeal, Moats filed a motion to proceed IFP on appeal. The district court denied Moats’s motion and certified that Moats’s appeal was not taken in good faith. In the instant motion, Moats makes no reference to the district court’s certification decision or the reasons for the dismissal. Thus, Moats has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal or that the district court erred in certifying that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Moats’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of Moats’s appeal counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Moats is cautioned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      0
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            0
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     320
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                   50
<OTHER-SE>                               (370)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                0
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            0
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           2,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (2,597)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           (2,597)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (0.01)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (0.01)
<FN>
<F1>*Less than .01 per share
</FN>



</TABLE>