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:

A24A0814. STANLEY KENNETH JOHNSON v. JOHN T. CLOUGH, III.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. After the

magistrate court entered final judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Defendant Stanley

Johnson appealed to the state court, which also ruled in favor of the plaintiff.Johnson

filed a motion to vacate the state court’s decision. The state court denied the motion

and awarded attorney fees to the plaintiff under OCGA § 9-15-14. Johnson then filed

this appeal. The Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that we lack

jurisdiction. We agree.

As the Appellee contends in his motion to dismiss, the trial court’s order was

not subject to direct appeal. An appeal from a state court order disposing of a de novo

appeal from a magistrate court decision must be initiated by filing an application for

discretionary appeal. OCGA§ 5-6-35 (a) (11); Strachan v. Meritor Mtg.Corp.East, 216

Ga. App. 82, 82 (453 SE2d 119) (1995). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals

procedure is jurisdictional.” Hair Restoration Specialists v. State of Ga., 360 Ga. App.

901, 903 (862 SE2d 564) (2021) (punctuation omitted). Johnson’s failure to followthe

proper procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal.

Moreover, the appeal is untimely. Under OCGA § 44-7-56 (b) (1), appeals in

dispossessory actions must be filed within seven days of the date the judgment was

entered. See Ray M. Wright, Inc. v. Jones, 239 Ga. App. 521, 522-523 (521 SE2d 456)

February 08, 2024
(1999). Here, the state court entered its order denying Johnson’s motion on

September 20, 2023, and Johnson filed his notice of appeal on October 17, which was 

27 days later.

For both ofthese reasons, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.Accordingly, the

motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED and 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.

02/08/2024
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 915 

Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives to the families 

and friends of the victims of the July 11, 2006, terrorist bombings 

in Mumbai, India, and sympathy to the people of India. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 17, 2006 

Mr. ACKERMAN (for himself, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. ROYCE, 

Ms. WATSON, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. SOUDER, Mrs. 

MALONEY, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. 

HOLT, Mr. SAXTON, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of 

Texas, Mr. MATHESON, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. 

CHANDLER, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. 

UDALL of Colorado, and Mr. BROWN of Ohio) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives 

to the families and friends of the victims of the July 

11, 2006, terrorist bombings in Mumbai, India, and sympathy to the people of India. 

Whereas on July 11, 2006, a series of eight bombs hit the 

western rail line in Mumbai, India, the busiest urban rail 

line in the world; 

Whereas 190 innocent people were killed and 625 were injured; 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 915 IH 

Whereas the citizens of Mumbai rushed to the scene in order 

to lend aid and comfort to the victims, carrying many of 

the wounded to ambulances; 

Whereas the bombings have been condemned in the strongest 

possible terms by leaders from around the world; 

Whereas Mumbai, and India generally, has been the victim of 

repeated terrorist attacks for almost two decades; 

Whereas India is a stalwart ally of the United States in the 

Global War on Terror; and 

Whereas neither the people nor the Government of India will 

waiver in the face of these cowardly attacks: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) expresses its condolences to the families and 

3 friends of the individuals killed in the terrorist 

4 bombing attacks in Mumbai, India, that occurred on 

5 July 11, 2006, and expresses its deepest sympathy 

6 to the individuals injured in such attacks and to the 

7 people of the Republic of India; 

8 (2) condemns the cowardly and unjustified at9 tacks on innocent civilians; 

10 (3) commends the authorities and people of 

11 Mumbai for their prompt and effective response to 

12 this atrocity; and 

13 (4) expresses— 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 915 IH 

1 (A) its solidarity with the Government and 

2 people of India as that nation continues com3 bating terrorism; and 

4 (B) its readiness to support and assist the 

5 Indian authorities in their efforts to bring to 

6 justice those individuals responsible for the re7 cent attacks in India and to pursue, disrupt, 

8 undermine, and dismantle the networks that 

9 plan and carry out such attacks. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33209]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0374]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Petition To Request an Exemption 
From 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients; Current Good 
Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or 
Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Petition to Request an Exemption 
From 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients; Current Good 
Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or 
Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements'' has been approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of 
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., 
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 30, 
2010 (75 FR 60463), the Agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0608. 
The approval expires on December 31, 2013. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: December 27, 2010.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2010-33209 Filed 1-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to                           ( print page 7599)                        acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 8, 2010.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

*1. Ida Grove Bancshares, Inc.*, Ida Grove, Iowa; to continue to engage                     *de novo*                     in leasing personal or real property, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(3) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 16, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-3281 Filed 2-19-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7363

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DEMAR LAMONT MOORE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR95-170; CA-03-1954)

Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: September 21, 2004

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demar Lamont Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Demar Lamont Moore, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims

addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are

debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.206 What is the procedure for submitting an appeal? ( a ) To appeal an order to withdraw a qualified exemption applicable to a farm under § 112.5, the owner, operator, or agent in charge of the farm must: ( 1 ) Submit the appeal in writing to the FDA Division Director in whose division the farm is located (or in the case of a foreign farm, the Director of the Office of Compliance in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition), at the mailing address, email address, or fax number identified in the order within 15 calendar days of the date of receipt of the order; and
( 2 ) Respond with particularity to the facts and issues contained in the order, including any supporting documentation upon which the owner, operator or agent in charge of the farm relies.
( b ) In a written appeal of the order withdrawing an exemption provided under § 112.5, the owner, operator, or agent in charge of the farm may include a written request for an informal hearing as provided in § 112.207.
[80 FR 74547, Nov. 27, 2015, as amended at 85 FR 16552, Mar. 24, 2020]
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2018296EN.01004002.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 22.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 296/40 |

---

Corrigendum to the Amendments to the Practice Rules for the implementation of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 294 of 21 November 2018](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2018_294_R_TOC)
)

On page 28, Article 1(8), point 80:

for:

| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ‘80. | The following information must appear on the first page of each procedural document: | | | | --- | --- | | (a) | the case number (T-.../0000), where it has already been notified by the Registry;’, | |

read:

| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ‘80. | The following information must appear on the first page of each procedural document: | | | | --- | --- | | (a) | the case number (T-.../...), where it has already been notified by the Registry;’. | |

---
#### § 1309.33 Filing of application; joint filings.

All applications for registration shall be submitted online at *www.DEAdiversion.usdoj.gov* for filing. The appropriate registration fee and any required attachments must accompany the application.

[87 FR 21023, Apr. 11, 2022]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33068]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: January 10, 2011.
    Time: 12:45 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Room 2A01, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference).
    Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20892-9304. (301) 435-6680. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eb98808a858f8a988aab868a8287c5858283c58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bccfd7ddd2d8ddcfddfcd1ddd5d092d2d5d492dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 27, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-33068 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<Page>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following registration
statements of our report dated February 4, 2004, appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Glenbrook Life and Annuity Company for the year ended December
31, 2003.

<Table>
<Caption>
               FORM S-3 REGISTRATION NOS.                      FORM N-4 REGISTRATION NOS.
       -------------------------------------------       ---------------------------------------
                         <S>                                             <C>
                         033-62193                                       033-62203
                         033-91916                                       033-91914
                         333-00987                                       333-34356
                         333-07275                                       333-50879
                         333-82906                                       333-55306
                         333-88870                                       333-62922
                                                                         333-65826
                                                                         333-69660
</Table>

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 24, 2004
###### Editorial Note on Part 25

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 25.433 Indian Tribe (or “federally recognized Indian Tribe”).

*Indian Tribe (or “federally recognized Indian Tribe”)* has the meaning given in 2 CFR 200.1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       1,108,387
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,517,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  7,459,944
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,609,597
<PP&E>                                      10,061,620
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,942,803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,159,859
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,617,822
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       281,815
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,466,713
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,159,859
<SALES>                                     15,694,342
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,694,342
<CGS>                                        8,022,563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,022,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             196,855
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,190,401)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   120,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,310,401)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,310,401)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.34)
        

</TABLE>
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 852 

Expressing the sense of the House that Members of Congress are not immune 

from having their offices searched. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2006 

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida (for herself, Mr. LEACH, Mrs. MYRICK, 

Mr. BASS, Mr. PORTER, Mr. SIMMONS, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. 

FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. 

DENT, Ms. HARRIS, Mrs. KELLY, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. SHAYS, 

Mr. KELLER, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. MICA, and Mr. HAYWORTH) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House that Members of Congress 

are not immune from having their offices searched. 

Whereas Members of Congress are not above the law; 

Whereas Members of Congress have a public trust to uphold; 

Whereas Members of Congress are elected to represent the 

interests of their constituents, not to protect their own 

interests; 

Whereas only certain legislative activities are protected from 

interference by the Speech or Debate Clause of the 

United States Constitution; and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 852 IH

Whereas the courts have ruled that the Speech or Debate 

Clause does not shield Members from investigation of and 

prosecution for criminal activity: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House that if 

2 there is an ongoing criminal investigation into a Member 

3 of Congress, then that Member’s congressional office may 

4 be subject to searches and seizures by appropriate execu5 tive branch officials in possession of a valid court order. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS