alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-11064

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEX NOEL MENDOZA-CANO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-4-2

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alex Noel Mendoza-Cano, federal prisoner # 39625-177, was convicted of 

possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to serve 102 

months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release. In this appeal, he 

challenges the district court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration he filed 

with respect to his unsuccessful motion for modification of sentence under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). As he did in the district court, Mendoza-Cano insists 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 8, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-11064 Document: 00512689582 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2014
No. 13-11064

that he is entitled to relief because his guidelines calculations were flawed and 

because Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), provides for such 

relief. 

He is mistaken, and his arguments do not show that the district court 

abused its discretion in connection with its rejection of his motions. See United 

States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009) (§ 3582(c)(2)); Martinez v. 

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 771 (5th Cir. 1997). Although Mendoza-Cano invoked 

§ 3582(c)(1)(B), his claims do not fit within the confines of that subsection, nor 

do these claims fall under the strictures of the other subsections of § 3582(c). 

Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his 

§ 3582(c) motion. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672; see also United States v. Garcia, 

606 F.3d 209, 212 n.5 (5th Cir. 2010). Because Alleyne does not affect this 

conclusion, the district court likewise did not abuse its discretion by denying 

his motion for reconsideration. See Martinez, 104 F.3d at 771. The judgment 

of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

2

 Case: 13-11064 Document: 00512689582 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2014
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**388 KA 13-01451**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL S. LEWIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (JON P. GETZ OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JAMES B. RITTS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), rendered June 26, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of predatory sexual assault against a child (eight counts), rape in the first degree (7 counts), rape in the second degree (11 counts), rape in the third degree (7 counts), sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child (four counts).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of, inter alia, eight counts of predatory sexual assault against a child (Penal Law § 130.96), defendant contends that County Court failed to apprehend its power to exercise its discretion in submitting representative counts to the jury inasmuch as the court allowed the prosecutor to select the counts to submit ( see generally CPL 300.40 [6] [b]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s contention is preserved for our review, we nevertheless reject it. The record establishes that the court engaged in lengthy and detailed discussions with both the prosecutor and defense counsel before determining which counts would be submitted to the jury.

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of counts seven and eight of the indictment ( see People v Gray , 86 NY2d 10, 19). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). We reject defendant’s further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel ( see generally People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147). Finally,**-2- 388 KA 13-01451** 
the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: April 29, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Attachment 3 

SAMPLE LETTER FOR APPROVED MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY

To: Inspector in Charge 

 XYZ Meat Packers, Inc. 

 1001 Main Street 

 Florence, Mississippi 39073 

 Dear Sir: 

 I certify that XYZ Meat Packers, Inc., located at 1001 Main Street, Florence, 

Mississippi, is supplied water from the City of Florence Municipal Water Co., which is approved 

by the Mississippi State Public Health Service. This water is potable, and meets tests prescribed 

by the Environmental Protection Agency in its “Drinking Water Standards”. 

 Attached please find a current water potability certification and laboratory 

sample report from the Mississippi State Public Health Service Laboratory, Jackson, Mississippi. 

 Sincerely, 

 Mr. A. B. Clean 

 Mr. A. B. Clean 

 State Sanitarian 

SAMPLE LETTER FOR APPROVED SEWAGE SYSTEM

To: Inspector in Charge 

 XYZ Meat Packers, Inc. 

 1001 Main Street 

 Florence, Mississippi 39073 

 Dear Sir: 

 I certify that XYZ Meat Packers, Inc., located at 1001 Main Street, Florence, 

Mississippi, is connected to the City of Florence Municipal Sewage System. I have inspected the 

plant disposal system and have found them to be acceptable to this department. 

 Sincerely, 

 Mr. A. B. Clean 

 Mr. A. B. Clean 

 State Sanitarian
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION IN THE FORM PROVIDED BY

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Brookstone, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that:



| | 1) | the Companys Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 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 Companys Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Louis ManciniLouis ManciniPresident and Chief ExecutiveOfficer, Director


Dated: November 14, 2006
#### Bradley Carl BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; Harley G. Lappin, Warden; Al Haynes, Warden; D.E. Gill, Associate Warden; Harold Taylor, Associate Warden; V. Dupuis, S.I.S. Lieutenant; D. Murphy, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-6238.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 12, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 2, 2011.

Bradley Carl Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel W. Dickinson, Jr., Office of the *652United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bradley Carl Brown appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Brown v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,*No. 5:08-cv-00083-FPS-JE S, 2009 WL 5098082 (ND.W.Va. Dec. 17, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

**Official websites use .gov** A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS** A **lock** ( Lock           A locked padlock           ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

**

Farm Service Agency

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                      - About FSA
                      - Ask USDA
                      - Contact Us
                      - Forms

- Home
- Programs & Services  - ARC/PLC Program
- Civil Rights
- Certified Mediation Program
- Climate Adaptation Plan
- Conservation Programs
- Cooperative Agreements
- Dairy Margin Coverage Program
- Disaster Assistance Programs
- Economic & Policy Analysis
- Emergency Relief
- Environmental & Cultural Resource Compliance 
- Farm Bill Home
- Farm Labor Stabilization & Protection Pilot Grants
- Farm Loan Programs
- Financial Management Information
- Increasing Land Access
- Initiatives
- Laws and Regulations
- Margin Protection Program for Dairy
- Market Facilitation Program
- MIDAS
- Organic Certification Cost Share Program
- Outreach & Education
- Payment Eligibility
- Price Support
- Rice Production Program

- State Offices
- Online Services  - LDP
- eARC/PLC
- Farmers.gov (FSA Farm+)
- FSA Online Data Resources
- Loan Assistance Tool

- Newsroom  - Fact Sheets
- News Releases
- Emergency Designations
- Stakeholder Information
- eFOIA
- Meetings & Events
- Public Service Announcements
- County Committee Elections
- Fence Post

# Outreach and Education

- Section Topics
- Outreach & Education Home
- About Us
- Help for Organic Farming
- National Director of Outreach
- News & Information
- Outreach Events
- Outreach Programs
- Partner Organization Resources
- Stakeholder Toolkit
- State Outreach Coordinators
- Webinars

Contact Your State Outreach Coordinator
Stakeholder Toolkits/News and Events
Read How FSA is Helping Farmers

Webinars

- Home
- Programs & Services
- State Offices
- Online Services
- Newsroom

- Farmers.gov
- USA.gov
- USDA.gov
- Whitehouse.gov

- Accessibility Statement
- Common Questions
- Freedom of Information Act

- No FEAR Report
- Information Quality
- Non-Discrimination Statement

- Policies and Links
- Privacy Policy
- Sitemap

#### Sign up for updates

**

Farm Service Agency

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

Twitter

RSS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,248

EX PARTE MICHAEL ANSHUN WALKER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 30,597-CR IN THE 13 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM NAVARRO COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession with

intent to deliver a controlled substance and sentenced to sixty-five years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. We remanded this

application to the trial court to allow counsel an opportunity to respond to this claim.

Counsel has filed an affidavit in response to the claim, and the trial court has determined that

a timely notice of appeal was not filed thorough no fault of Applicant. We find, therefore, that
2

Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of conviction

in Cause No. 30,597-CR from the 13 Judicial District Court of Navarro County. Applicant is

th

ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then,

with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the

sentence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that,

should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice

of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: October 28, 2009

Do Not Publish
<PAGE>

   Exhibit 32.1



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

     I, Seth Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of Franklin Credit Management (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 the
     Quarterly  Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
     March 31, 2004 fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
     information  contained  in the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q fairly
     presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
     operations of the Company.

   Date:  May 14, 2004

                                        BY:_______________________________
                                                  Name: Seth Cohen
                                                 Title: Chief Executive Officer



     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
     906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being
     filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.


     A signed original of this written  statement required by Section 906 has
     been provided to Franklin Credit  Management  Corporation and will be
     retained by Franklin Credit Management Corporation and furnished to the
     Securities  and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Winegardner *versus*Hafer.

A constable has no right to remove property which has been previously levied on by another constable, and whilst it is subject to the first levy. The right to the proceeds, however, is determinable by law '

Error to the Common Pleas of *Union county.*

This was an action of trespass, by Jacob Hafer against Albert Winegardner, brought before a justice, and brought into court by appeal. Bostian Divel confessed a judgment in favor of his brother, John Divel, for $85. Same day, execution was issued, and was received by Hafer, a constable, and Hafer alleged that on the next day he made a levy on all the personal property of Bostian Divel, which, however, was not removed. The levy included two or three cattle. On the 15th December, Rangier brought suit on a note against Bostian Divel, and, on the 22d of that month, obtained judgment. On the same day, execution issued to Winegardner, another constable, who made a levy on the property in the possession of Divel, including the cattle previously levied on by Hafer, and put them into a stable for security. Hafer afterwards took the cattle out of the *stable and*sold them, and subsequently brought this suit against Winegardner for taking away the cattle. The levy made by Winegardner was made on thé day before the sale by Hafer. Verdict for plaintiff, for $7.

On the trial it was offered to be proved, on the part of defendant, that the judgment confessed by Bostian Divel in favor of John, his brother, was *fraudulent.*The evidence was rejected by Judge Wilson, on the ground that another creditor cannot legally take property which had been previously levied on by a constable, out of the possession of the officer who has it in possession under process issued by competent authority.' Exception on part of defendant.

. Various exceptions were taken on the trial, and answers of the court to points were excepted to. The point on which the case was decided before the Supreme Court, relates merely to the re*145moval of property by the second constable, after levy on it by another constable.

*Miller*was for plaintiff in error.

Linn, for defendant.

August 1, 1850.

Per curiam.

It is indifferent which of the two levies was entitled to bind the property. 'It was in the exclusive possession of the one constable, and the other had-no right to disturb it. The right to the proceeds was determinable by law; and so far is the principle carried, that the property .of a stranger in the hands of a sheriff or a constable cannot be replevied, though the same protection is not extended to the purchaser. The reason is, that there would be confusion and disturbance of the peace if the process of the law were not allowed to run its course.

Judgment affirmed.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1929. JAMES P. GARY, JR. v. HOLLY A. MORMAN.

HollyA. Morman filed a petition seeking, among other things, the modification

of custody of her minor children with James P. Gary, Jr. The trial court entered an

order modifying custody and finding Gary in contempt but awarding no attorney fees

to the parties. The trial court subsequently entered an amended order modifying the

parties’ parenting plan and awarding attorney fees to Morman in the amount of

$2,600. Gary filed a direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction. 

Generally appeals from orders in domestic relations cases must be pursued by

discretionary application. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). “[C]ompliance with the

discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Fabe v. Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322,

332 (1) (405 SE2d 265) (1991). Although OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) permits a direct

appeal from all judgments or orders in “child custody cases,” the issue raised on

appeal governs whether an order may be appealed directly, and here the issue is not

custody but attorney fees. See Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 47 (799 SE2d 160)

(2017) (appeal in a domestic relations case in which custody is not an issue must be

brought by discretionary application). Gary’s failure to follow the discretionary

April 02, 2019
appeal procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this case, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/02/2019
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
The Board of Directors
Gart Sports Company:
 
We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
S-8 of Gart Sports Company of our report dated March 11, 1999, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheets of Gart Sports Company and subsidiaries as of
January 30, 1999, January 31, 1998, and January 3, 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
the 52 weeks ended January 30, 1999, 28 days ended January 31, 1998, and the
52 weeks ended January 3, 1998 and January 4, 1997, which report appears in
the January 30, 1999, annual report on Form 10-K of Gart Sports Company.
 
KPMG LLP
 
Denver, Colorado
April 27, 1999
Exhibit 32.1

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 G & L Realty Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel M. Gottlieb, Chief Executive 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:

(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/ Daniel M. GottliebDaniel M. GottliebChief Executive OfficerMarch 31, 2006
|   | (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                Registrant. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Neal              Ludeke                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |   |   |   |
| Neal                LudekeChief                Financial Officer of Richman TaxCredit                Properties Inc., general partner ofRichman                Tax Credit Properties L.P., generalpartner                of the RegistrantMarch                28, 2008 |   |   |        |

----
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2618-15T1

CHARLES BRESSMAN,

Plaintiff-Respondent/

Cross-Appellant,

v.

J&J SPECIALIZED, LLC,

Defendant-Appellant/

Cross-Respondent.

______________________________

Argued April 24, 2017 – Decided May 31, 2017

Before Judges Sabatino and Currier.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Passaic County, Docket No. 

C-0020-11.

Peter R. Bray argued the cause for 

appellant/cross-respondent (Bray & Bray, 

L.L.C., attorneys; Mr. Bray, on the briefs).

Joshua S. Bauchner argued the cause for 

respondent/cross-appellant (Ansell Grimm & 

Aaron, attorneys; Mr. Bauchner, on the 

briefs).

PER CURIAM

We have been advised that this matter has been amicably 

adjusted and the parties have stipulated to the dismissal of this 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." 

Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
2 A-2618-15T1

appeal pursuant to the terms of a concurrently filed Consent Order. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with prejudice and without 

costs.