alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 12, 2022

No. 04-21-00588-CR

Thomas Peter CORTEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR9005

Honorable Melisa C. Skinner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to 

raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed 

appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, informed appellant of his right 

to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare the appeal frivolous, and 

provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the procedure 

for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); 

Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 

S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). As of the date of this order, 

appellant has not filed the record-request motion provided to him by his counsel. 

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so by August 11, 2022. 

If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty 

days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in 

abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80–82 (1988) 

(holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently 

reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); 

Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).
_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of July, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER 

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

 

I, Michael G. Rubin, Co-President and Chief Executive Officer of GSI Commerce, Inc., certifythat: 

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of GSICommerce, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot 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 bythis report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) [Intentionally Omitted.] 

 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; 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 over financial reporting. 

 

August 9, 2004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan RODRIGUEZ, aka Chief, aka Clever, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50495.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 2010.

Filed Dec. 15, 2010.

*143David P. Curnow, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Frank J. Ragen, Esquire, Law Office of Frank J. Ragen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Juan Rodriguez, who pleaded guilty to an extensive conspiracy to distribute cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, appeals his sentence of 30 years. His appeal has no merit.

Given this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in receiving hearsay evidence tending to show Rodriguez’s (1) connection to a street gang, and (2) his relationship to the Mexican Mafia. Hearsay evidence is admissible at sentencing “so long as it is accompanied by some minimal indicia of reliability.” *United States v. Littlesun,*444 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The hearsay evidence was corroborated by the letter stating that “rent” was being paid to “Clever” (i.e. Rodriguez), the phone book found in the cell of a known gang and mafia member that listed Rodriguez’s phone numbers and address, and Rodriguez’s own admission that he associated with the Encinitas Home Boys. In any event, it appears that this evidence was not a factor in the district court’s determination of the length of his sentence, so any error would be harmless. *See United States v. Mendoza,*121 F.3d 510, 513-14 (9th Cir.1997).

Second, Rodriguez complains he was denied the opportunity to voir dire two witnesses who testified as part of an evidentiary hearing in connection with his sentence. However, he does not explain how he was disadvantaged by the court’s ruling, and he has not indicated what he would have accomplished during voir dire that he could not accomplish on cross examination.

Third, Rodriguez’s sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively erroneous. *United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). The district court followed the usual § 3553(a) factors and considered Rodriguez’s mitigating evidence, including the comments of his family members and his claim that he had a drug and gambling problem. Given the size and nature of Rodriguez’s criminal organization, the determination of the length of his sentence was appropriate and reasonable. The district court was well aware of the lesser sentences meted out to his co-defendants, but because Rodriguez was the head of his criminal conspiracy, the court’s choice of a harsher sentence for him was rational and sensible. The goals *144of sentencing as articulated in § 8553(a)(2) are well served by a lengthy sentence in this case.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1629

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the use and sale

of military medals and decorations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 1, 1993

Mr. MCCANDLESS (for himself, Mr. PARKER, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. PAXON, Mr.

DORNAN, and Mr. LAZIO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to

the use and sale of military medals and decorations.

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

3 That section 704 of title 18, United States Code, is

4 amended—

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before ‘‘Whoever’’;

6 (2) by striking ‘‘not more than $250’’ and in7 serting ‘‘under this title’’; and

8 (3) by adding at the end the following:

9 ‘‘(b)(1) If the decoration or medal involved in an of10 fense under subsection (a) of this section is a Congres-
2

•HR 1629 IH

1 sional Medal of Honor, in lieu of the punishment provided

2 in such subsection the offender shall be fined under this

3 title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

4 ‘‘(2) As used in subsection (a) of this section with

5 respect to a Congressional Medal of Honor, the term ‘sells’

6 includes trades, barters, or exchanges for anything of

7 value.

8 ‘‘(3) As used in this subsection, the term ‘Congres9 sional Medal of Honor’ is a medal awarded under section

10 3741 of title 10.’’.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 99.2


THERMA-WAVE, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Boris Lipkin, in my capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of Therma-Wave, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(Therma-Wave), and in connection with the
Quarterly Report of Therma-Wave on Form 10-Q/A for the period
ended September 29, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), hereby
certify that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                        
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1.     The Report fully
    complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.                                       
|
| | 2.     The information
    contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
    Therma-Wave.



| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| | /s/ BORIS LIPKIN                         
| |                                          
| | Boris Lipkin                             
| | President and Chief Executive
    Officer

May 5, 2003



---



##### 



THERMA-WAVE, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, L. Ray Christie, in my capacity as Chief
Financial Officer of Therma-Wave, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(Therma-Wave), and in connection with the
Quarterly Report of Therma-Wave on Form 10-Q/A for the
period ended September 29, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), hereby certify that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                        
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1.     The Report fully
    complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.                                       
|
| | 2.     The information
    contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
    Therma-Wave.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ L. RAY CHRISTIE    
| |                        
| | L. Ray Christie        
| | Chief Financial Officer

May 5, 2003
Exhibit 32.1



Section 1350 Certifications



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Strategic Diagnostics Inc.
(the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



|                     |  |     |  |                                                        
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/    MATTHEW H.
KNIGHT                               
|                     |  |     |  | Matthew H. Knight President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<PAGE>  
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          21,354
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,637
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         152,843
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,061
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 189,380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,767
<BONDS>                                         95,172
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         29
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,854
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   189,380
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,049
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,614
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,088
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,262
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,561
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,561
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.89
        

</TABLE>
* 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 28, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41726 Conference Calendar

LAZELL DON JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES; WILLIAM SIEGMAN, Director of Review and Release Proc.; HOWARD THRASHER, Program Administrator, Release Proc.; HUGH CAMPBELL, Program Administrator, III; ELLIS HUFFMAN, Program Administrator I; V. RUTH FLYNN, Administrative Secretary I; UNIDENTIFIED GARCIA, Parole Commissioner; SANDIE WALKER, Board Member; DON JONES, Program Administrator I; DEBORAH ESSARY, Institutional Parole Caseworker, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:05-CV-279

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Lazell Don Jackson, Texas prisoner # 61277, appeals following the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure to prosecute. Jackson argues that the district court lacked authority to sua sponte dismiss his complaint for failure to pay the initial partial filing feeNo. 05-41726 -2- and that his in forma pauperis complaint could be dismissed only if it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. Jackson’s arguments are without merit. See FED . R. C IV . P. 41(b); McCullough v. Lynaugh , 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). With the benefit of liberal construction, Jackson also argues that he believed the district court would collect the filing fee, that the district court’s dismissal was arbitrary, malicious, and fraudulent, and that his complaint raised meritorious issues relating to the denial of parole, denial of good-time credit, and the Ex Post Facto Clause. The record shows that Jackson was instructed that he was responsible for paying the filing fee and timely executing all necessary documents for withdrawals from his inmate trust account, but Jackson did not comply with the district court’s order. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint without prejudice. See McCullough , 835 F.2d at 1127. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00335

- CR

Anthony Gordon Momentoff

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From County Criminal Court No. 10

o f Tarrant County (1272125 )

November 7, 2013

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ Justice Lee Gabriel
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2074 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2074
                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
  the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three


                                 An Act


 
To authorize appropriations for the American Folklife Center for fiscal 
                          years 1994 and 1995.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FOLKLIFE 
              CENTER.

    Section 8 of the American Folklife Preservation Act (20 U.S.C. 2107) 
is amended--
        (1) by striking out ``and'' after ``September 30, 1992,''; and
        (2) by inserting after ``September 30, 1993'' the following: ``, 
    $1,120,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and 
    $1,120,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995''.







                                Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                             Vice President of the United States and    
                                                President of the Senate.`
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 Annual Report of Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund VIII (the “Fund”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies 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 Partnership.











/s/Kenneth J. Cutillo


Kenneth J. Cutillo


Principal Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer


Arch Street VIII, Inc., as


General Partner of


Arch Street VIII Limited Partnership, as


General Partner of


Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund VIII,


A Limited Partnership








Date:           June 29, 2011





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