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

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 08, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19A1352. DEVAUGHN PATRICK FOLEY v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On February 22, 2019, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors 

and a brief no later than March 04, 2019. As of the date of this order, the appellant's 

enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed 

abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate 

review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 

264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a 

brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while 

you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's 

failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, 

you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time 

appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will 

have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the 

trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the 

trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days 

from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a 

notice of appeal from that order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 08, 2019.

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.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to 

the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy 

of this order to the appellant.
# C_2014462EN.01002501.xml

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/25

---

Action brought on 15 July 2014 — Rosenich v OHIM

(Case T-527/14)

(2014/C 462/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Paul Rosenich (Triesenberg, Liechtenstein) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and C. Eckhartt, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2014 in Case R 2063/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2014 in Case R 2063/2012-4;

| — | annul the decision taken by the Director of the ‘Operations Support Department’ of OHIM of 7 September 2012, by which the applicant’s application to be included in the list of professional representatives before the defendant office was rejected, on the basis of the applicant’s complaint of 7 November 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by the Director of the ‘Operations Support Department’ of OHIM of 7 September 2012, by which the applicant’s application to be included in the list of professional representatives before the defendant office was rejected, on the basis of the applicant’s complaint of 7 November 2012;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 93 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with the principle of freedom to provide services within the European Economic Area as provided for by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, since it confirms the rejection of his application to be included in the list of professional representatives before OHIM, despite the fact that, although he does not have his professional residence in a Member State of the European Union, he has it in a Member State of the European Economic Area.

---
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.4420 Cardiopulmonary bypass cardiotomy return sucker. ( a ) *Identification.* A cardiopulmonary bypass cardiotomy return sucker is a device that consists of tubing, a connector, and a probe or tip that is used to remove blood from the chest or heart during cardiopulmonary bypass surgery.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 870.9.
[45 FR 7907, Feb. 5, 1980, as amended at 84 FR 71812, Dec. 30, 2019]
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44606

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

ANDREW GARLOCK ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 444

Filed: April 21, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Richard D. Greenwood , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for battery with the intent to commit a serious felony; concurrent unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for one count of penetration by a foreign object; and concurrent unified sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for one count of penetration by a foreign object, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, Stat e Appellate Public Defender; Aaron J. Currin , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy At torney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; MELANSON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Andrew Garlock pled guilty to battery with the intent to commit a serious felony , I.C.

§§ 18

- 903 and 18

- 911, and two counts of penetration by a foreign object, I.C. § 18

- 6608

. In
exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced

Garlock to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen2 years, for battery with the intent to commit a seri ous felony; a concurrent unified term of twenty

years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for one count of penetration by a

foreign object; and a concurrent unified term of life imprisonment, with a minimum period of

confinement of fift een years, for one count of penetration by a foreign object. Garlock filed an

I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Garlock appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 1 14, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Garlock ’s jud gment of conviction and sentence s are affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3350 Gold or stainless steel cusp. ( a ) *Identification.* A gold or stainless steel cusp is a prefabricated device made of austenitic alloys or alloys containing 75 percent or greater gold and metals of the platinum group or stainless steel intended to provide a permanent cusp (a projection on the chewing surface of a tooth) to achieve occlusal harmony (a proper bite) between the teeth and a removable denture.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 872.9.
[52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at 59 FR 63008, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38798, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6100 Ethylene oxide gas aerator cabinet. ( a ) *Identification.* An ethyene oxide gas aerator cabinet is a device that is intended for use by a health care provider and consists of a cabinet with a ventilation system designed to circulate and exchange the air in the cabinet to shorten the time required to remove residual ethylene oxide (ETO) from wrapped medical devices that have undergone ETO sterilization. The device may include a heater to warm the circulating air.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

FREDERICK ADDISON

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 17

- 2692

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 22, 2017

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County

, Richard A. Howard , Judge.

Frederick Addison, Bristol, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Frederick Addison appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction

relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the record

does not conclusively refute Addison’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to

de pose or call the victim to testify for mitigation purposes at his sentencing on the violation

of probation, we reverse the order summarily denying his motion and remand for2

attachment of portions of the r ecord conclusively refuting the claim or for an evid entiary

hearing. See Freeman v. State

, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) ( " [A] defendant is

entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion,

files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is en titled to no relief,

or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing Maharaj v. State , 684

So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996))).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, BERGER and WALLIS, J J.

, c oncur.
| · | Servicing criterion 1122(d)(1)(iii) is applicable only with respect to the Company’s continuing obligation to act as, or locate a, successor servicer under the circumstances referred to in certain transaction agreements. It is management’s interpretation that the Company has no other active back up servicing responsibilities in regards to servicing criterion 1122(d)(1)(iii) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| · | Servicing criterion 1122(d)(1)(v) is applicable only to the activities the Company performs related to the mathematically accurate aggregation of information received from servicers and the accurate conveyance of such information within reports to investors. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| · | Servicing criterion 1122(d)(4)(iii) is applicable to the activities the Company performs with respect to the Platform only as it relates to the Company’s obligation to report additions, removals or substitutions on reports to investors in accordance with the transaction agreements. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

April 22, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00905

- CV

ESCONDIDO RESOURCES II, LLC

, Appellant

v.

JUSTAPOR RANCH, L.C., Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- CV7

- 001396

- D1 The Honorable Joe Lopez, J udge Presiding



### ORDER

On January 22, 2015

, and February 24, 2015, we suspended the appellate deadlines in this case pending mediation. See 4 TH T EX

. A PP

. (S AN A NTONIO ) L OC

. R. 2. However, on April 21, 2015, the appellant notified this court that the mediation was unsuccessful.

We, therefore, ORDER the appellate deadlines reinstated. The clerk’s record and the reporter’s record have been filed. Accordingly, appellant’s brief is due thirty (30) days from the dat e of this order.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 22nd day of April, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
§ 876.5160 Urological clamp. ( a ) *Identification.* A urological clamp for males is a device used to close the urethra of a male to control urinary incontinence or to hold anesthetic or radiography contrast media in the urethra temporarily. It is an external clamp.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). Except when intended for internal use, the device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 876.9.
[48 FR 53023, Nov. 23, 1963, as amended at 65 FR 2317, Jan. 14, 2000; 84 FR 71814, Dec. 30, 2019]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED
DECEMBER 31, 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         109,735
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  802,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                    37,830
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               899,729
<PP&E>                                       1,977,293
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,576,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,897,933
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,085,099
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,184
<OTHER-SE>                                     773,664
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,897,933
<SALES>                                      1,431,243
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,665,589
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  709,585
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,956,004
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (164,543)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (164,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (164,543)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 900.1 Scope.

The regulations set forth in this part implement the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) (42 U.S.C. 263b). Subpart A of this part establishes procedures whereby an entity can apply to become a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved accreditation body to accredit facilities to be eligible to perform screening or diagnostic mammography services. Subpart A further establishes requirements and standards for accreditation bodies to ensure that all mammography facilities under the jurisdiction of the United States are adequately and consistently evaluated for compliance with national quality standards for mammography. Subpart B of this part establishes minimum national quality standards for mammography facilities to ensure safe, reliable, and accurate mammography. The regulations set forth in this part do not apply to facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 000854852
<NAME> MICROTEL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         861,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,583,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   228,000
<INVENTORY>                                  7,844,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,382,000
<PP&E>                                      11,075,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,079,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,460,000 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,101,000
<BONDS>                                      3,013,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          701,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,890,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,460,000
<SALES>                                     31,272,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,272,000
<CGS>                                       23,542,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               39,398,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             659,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,805,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,811,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,811,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.92)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Form 10-Q of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, I, Martin L. Vaughan, III, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs
Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



(a) such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and



(b) the information contained in such Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Company and its subsidiaries as of and for the periods presented
in such Form 10-Q.



|    |  |                                                             |  |  |  |       |  |            
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----- |  | -----------
|    |  |                                                             |  | 
|By: |  | /s/    Martin L. Vaughan, III                               |  |  |  | Date: |  | May 4, 2006
|    |  | Martin L. Vaughan, III Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |       |  |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

   In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Biopure Corporation
for the period ended April 30, 2004, I, Ronald F. Richards, Chief Financial
Officer, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   1. the Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2004, 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 Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30,
      2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of Biopure Corporation.

/s/ Ronald F. Richards
--------------------------
Ronald F. Richards
Chief Financial Officer

June 14, 2004

                                       39