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

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0701. JAMES W. HOOD v. THE STATE.

In 2011, James Hood entered negotiated guilty pleasto one count each of child

molestation and statutory rape. After this Court vacated Hood’s sentence for the child

molestation conviction, see Hood v. State, 343 Ga. App. 230, 234 (1) (807 SE2d 10)

(2017), he withdrew his guilty plea to that charge, see Hood v. State, 351 Ga. App.

665, 665-666 (832 SE2d 652) (2019), and the trial court granted the State’s motion

for an order of nolle prosequi as to that charge in September 2019. 

In June 2020, Hood filed a “Motion for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel,” in

which he contended that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance in a

prior appeal by failing to challenge the trial court’s denial of his request to withdraw

his guilty plea to statutory rape. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal

followed. We lack jurisdiction.

Regardless of its nomenclature, Hood’s June 2020 motion essentially seeks to

vacate his judgment of conviction. However, “a petition to vacate or modify a

judgment of conviction is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case.”1 Harper v.

State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686 SE2d 786) (2009). Any appeal from an order

denying or dismissing such a petition or motion must be dismissed. See Roberts v.

State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010); Harper, 286 Ga. at 218 (2).

1 A petition for a writ of habeas corpusisthe proper vehicle for raising an issue

that could not have been raised in a prior appeal, such as a claim of ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel. Milliken v. Stewart, 276 Ga. 712, 713 (583 SE2d 30)

(2003); Baptiste v. State, 262 Ga. App. 71, 71 (585 SE2d 92) (2003).

December 15, 2020
Consequently, this appeal 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.

12/15/2020
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2709 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2709

   To suspend temporarily the duty on Ethanesulfonic acid, 2-[[[2,5-
   dichloro-4-[(2-methyl-1H-indol-3-yl)azo]phenyl]sulf onyl]amino]-, 
                            monosodium salt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2005

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on Ethanesulfonic acid, 2-[[[2,5-
   dichloro-4-[(2-methyl-1H-indol-3-yl)azo]phenyl]sulf onyl]amino]-, 
                            monosodium salt.

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

SECTION 1. ETHANESULFONIC ACID, 2-[[[2,5-DICHLORO-4-[(2-METHYL-1H-
              INDOL-3-YL)AZO]PHENYL]SULFONYL]AMINO]-, MONOSODIUM SALT.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.12.14       Ethanesulfonic     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         acid, 2-[[[2, 5-                                                   31/2008
                         dichloro-4-[(2-
                         methyl-1H-indol-3-
                         yl)azo]
                         phenyl]sulfonyl]
                         amino]-,
                         monosodium salt
                         (CAS No. 68959-19-
                         3) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         3204.12.45)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                       21,759,924
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                      35,417,429
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                               3,136,768
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,839,201
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                             0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                      597,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                            597,583
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                 38,105
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                    37,505,433
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                        3,810,535
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                        3,810,535
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                      138,273
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                      1,290,925
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                     (627,915)
<NET-ASSETS>                                53,241,618
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                            1,168,898
<INTEREST-INCOME>                                    0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                               1,030,625
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                        138,273
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                     1,290,925
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                    (627,915)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                          801,283
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                            0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                              0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                          0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                                  0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                         801,283
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                            0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                          775,010
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                              1,030,625
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                        52,840,977
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                            13.76
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                    .04
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                            .17
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                            0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                              13.97
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                   .039


</TABLE>
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOB KAUFMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-08-03755 EDL

ORDER VACATING HEARING

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 106) is appropriate for decision without oral

argument. Therefore, the hearing set for March 16, 2010 is vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03755-EDL Document 108 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 217

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 217 appear at 68 FR 51362, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 217.21 Discrimination prohibited.

No qualified handicapped person shall, because a recipient's facilities within the United States are inaccessible to or unusable by handicapped persons, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity to which this part applies.
§ 96.20 Choosing an accrediting entity. ( a ) An agency that seeks to become accredited must apply to an accrediting entity that is designated to provide accreditation services and that has jurisdiction over its application. A person that seeks to become approved must apply to an accrediting entity that is designated to provide approval services and that has jurisdiction over its application. The agency or person may apply to only one accrediting entity at a time.
( b ) ( 1 ) If the agency or person is applying for accreditation or approval pursuant to this part for the first time, it may apply to any accrediting entity with jurisdiction over its application. However, the agency or person must apply to the same accrediting entity that handled its prior application when it next applies for accreditation or approval, if the agency or person: ( i ) Has been denied accreditation or approval;
( ii ) Has withdrawn its application in anticipation of denial;
( iii ) Has had its accreditation or approval cancelled by an accrediting entity or the Secretary;
( iv ) Has been temporarily debarred by the Secretary; or
( v ) Has been refused renewal of its accreditation or approval by an accrediting entity.
( 2 ) If the prior accrediting entity is no longer providing accreditation or approval services, the agency or person may apply to any accrediting entity with jurisdiction over its application.
[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006. Redesignated at 79 FR 40634, July 14, 2014]
Case 3:08-cv-04787-MEJ Document 27 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-04787-MEJ Document 27 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-04787-MEJ Document 27 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 4
January 22, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-04787-MEJ Document 27 Filed 01/22/10 Page 4 of 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This statement contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
as of September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          47,623
<SECURITIES>                                    34,450
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    227,843
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               579,085
<PP&E>                                         185,302
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (50,233)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,814,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,723,592
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     20,318
<COMMON>                                       222,980
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,172,373)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,814,186
<SALES>                                        142,685
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               142,685
<CGS>                                          127,102
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,937,991
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107,822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,017,867)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,017,687)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,017,687)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.19)
        

</TABLE>
### §5652. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5652 was editorially reclassified as section 11142 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5652, Pub. L. 93–415, title II, §242, Sept. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1126; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7260, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4441; Pub. L. 102–586, §2(g)(2), Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 4995, related to the information function of the Institute, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title II, §12210(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1880.
#### Henri M. Gallen v. Wilfred E. Fulcher.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Charles B. Oates, Deceased. Donald M. Oates, as Executor of Charles B. Oates, Deceased, Appellant; Thelma W. Oates, Respondent.

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, Chenango County, entered November 12, 1976, affirmed, without costs, No opinion. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### § 911.5 Arbitrability of determination.

Questions that cannot be resolved by the parties as to whether a complaint is subject to this procedure may be referred by either party to the Grievance Board for a threshold determination.
; . . . . “ : ‘ ..., 0; - ‘ . * .:,:

. . . -: ..:/” **OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 123124
### §3796gg–0a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796gg–0a was editorially reclassified as section 10443 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
(April 6, 1978)

#### Lester Gerr et al., Respondents, v William Weissberg, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 11, 1977, insofar as the order conditionally denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, without costs or disbursements. We find that Special Term abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment on condition that plaintiffs serve a verified bill of particulars in compliance with defendant’s demand (see *Le Frois Foods Corp.*v *Aetna Ins. Co.,*47 AD2d 994). The order entered May 28, 1974 precluded particulars of plaintiffs’ claim unless plaintiffs submitted a fully responsive bill of particulars within 20 days from service of a copy of said order with notice of entry (CPLR 3042, subd [d]). Two and a half years elapsed from May 28, 1974 until defendant in February, 1977 moved for summary judgment, during which period plaintiffs did not submit the required bill of particulars or move to be relieved of the preclusion order. Nor have they offered any valid excuse for their failure to comply with that order (see *Le Frois Foods Corp. v Aetna Ins. Co., supra).*Plaintiffs claim that they were not served with a copy of the order of preclusion with notice of entry is without merit. The record discloses that on or about July 2 or 3, 1974 plaintiffs served defendant with a copy of said order with notice of entry. It is apparent therefore that plaintiffs had notice of such order since that date. In any event, inasmuch as plaintiffs did not raise that claim at Special Term, it is deemed to have been waived *(Farr v Newman,*14 NY2d 183, 187-188). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Fein, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.
§ 1000.58 Are there limitations on the investment of IHBG funds? ( a ) A recipient may invest IHBG funds for the purposes of carrying out affordable housing activities in investment securities and other obligations as provided in this section.
( b ) The recipient may invest IHBG funds so long as it demonstrates to HUD: ( 1 ) That there are no unresolved significant and material audit findings or exceptions in the most recent annual audit completed under the Single Audit Act or in an independent financial audit prepared in accordance with generally accepted auditing principles; and
( 2 ) That it is a self-governance Indian tribe or that it has the administrative capacity and controls to responsibly manage the investment. For purposes of this section, a self-governance Indian tribe is an Indian tribe that participates in tribal self-governance as authorized under Public Law 93-638, as amended (25 U.S.C. 450 *et seq.*).
( c ) Recipients shall invest IHBG funds only in: ( 1 ) Obligations of the United States; obligations issued by Government sponsored agencies; securities that are guaranteed or insured by the United States; mutual (or other) funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and which invest only in obligations of the United States or securities that are guaranteed or insured by the United States; or
( 2 ) Accounts that are insured by an agency or instrumentality of the United States or fully collateralized to ensure protection of the funds, even in the event of bank failure.
( d ) IHBG funds shall be held in one or more accounts separate from other funds of the recipient. Each of these accounts shall be subject to an agreement in a form prescribed by HUD sufficient to implement the regulations in this part and permit HUD to exercise its rights under § 1000.60.
( e ) Expenditure of funds for affordable housing activities under section 204(a) of NAHASDA shall not be considered investment.
( f ) A recipient may invest its IHBG annual grant in an amount equal to the annual formula grant amount.
( g ) Investments under this section may be for a period no longer than 5 years.
[63 FR 12349, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 77 FR 71524, Dec. 3, 2012]
### §3796kk–3. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796kk–3 was editorially reclassified as section 10514 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 241.13 Change in agreements.

No Noteholder will consent to any change or waiver of any provision of any document contemplated by this Guarantee without the prior written consent of USAID.
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL Case Nos. C 08-5481 VRW 

 C 09-1909 VRW 

 C 09-5360 VRW 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Robert E. Rohde 

Washington Bar No. 12809 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

Email: brohde@rohdelaw.com 

Gregory G. Schwartz (Cal. SBN 206134) 

Email: gschwartz@rohdelaw.com 

ROHDE & VAN KAMPEN PLLC 

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4050 

Seattle, Washington 98154 

Telephone: (206) 386-7353 

Facsimile: (206) 405-2825 

Michael James Cronen 

Cal. State Bar No. 131087 

ZIMMERMAN & CRONEN, LLP 

1330 Broadway, Suite 710 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Tel: (510) 465-0828 

Fax: (510) 465-2041 

E-mail: mcronen@zimpatent.com 

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant.& Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

DATA RETRIEVAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

SYBASE, INC. and INFORMATICA 

CORPORATION, 

 

 Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants, 

 v. 

DATA RETRIEVAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC, 

 Defendant/Counterclaimant. 

Case Nos. C 08-5481 VRW 

 C 09-1909 VRW 

 C 09-5360 VRW 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 

DATA RETRIEVAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC, 

 

 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

 v. 

SYBASE, INC. and INFORMATICA 

CORPORATION, 

 Defendants/Counterclaimants. 

Case 3:08-cv-05481-JCS Document 115 Filed 06/11/10 Page 1 of 2
- 1 - 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL Case Nos. C 08-5481 VRW 

 C 09-1909 VRW 

 C 09-5360 VRW 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant and Counterclaimant Data Retrieval Technology, LLC consents to and substitutes as 

its local counsel in the above-captioned action the law firm of Harvey Siskind LLP, 4 Embarcadero 

Center, 39th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111, telephone number (415) 354-0100 and facsimile 

number (415) 3391-7124, in place of Zimmerman & Cronen, LLP. 

Having considered the Notice of Substitution of Counsel, and finding good cause therefore, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that the law firm of Harvey Siskind LLP is substituted as local counsel in place 

and instead of Zimmerman & Cronen, LLP. 

 

Dated: ____________________________________ 

 Honorable Vaughn R. Walker 

 United States District Court 

 

Case 3:08-cv-05481-JCS Document 115 Filed 06/11/10 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28214]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Federal Open Market Committee; Domestic Policy Directive of 
November 10, 2004

    In accordance with Sec.  271.25 of its rules regarding availability 
of information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic 
policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its 
meeting held on November 10, 2004.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Copies of the Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 
meeting on November 10, 2004, which includes the domestic policy 
directive issued at the meeting, are available upon request to the 
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. 
20551. The minutes are published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin and 
in the Board's annual report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial 
conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable 
growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee in 
the immediate future seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent 
with increasing the federal funds rate to an average of around 2 
percent.
    By order of the Federal Open Market Committee, December 17, 2004.

Vincent R. Reinhart,
Secretary, Federal Open Market Committee.
[FR Doc. 04-28214 Field 12-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S