alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1300 Nuclear rectilinear scanner. ( a ) *Identification.* A nuclear rectilinear scanner is a device intended to image the distribution of radionuclides in the body by means of a detector (or detectors) whose position moves in two directions with respect to the patient. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, radionuclide anatomical markers, component parts, and accessories.
( 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 § 892.9.
[55 FR 48444, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 65 FR 2322, Jan. 14, 2000; 66 FR 38818, July 25, 2001]
## C o ur t o f A ppe a ls

o f the Sta te o f G eo r g i a

A T L A N T A

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h e r e b y p a s s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r :

A 2 4 A 1 3 4 6 . S I D N E Y W E N D E L L L A M B v . T H E S T A T E

.

I n 2 0 2 2

, S i d n e y W e n d e l l L a m b p l e d g u i l ty t o po s s e s s i o n o f c o c a i n e w i t h i n t e n t t o

d i s t r i b u t e

. O n F e b r u a r

y 7

, 2 0 2 4

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a n a m e n d e d j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n a n d

s e n t e n c e

. O n A p r i l 1 1

, 2 0 2 4

, L a m b

, p roceedi ng pro s e

, f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. W e l a c k

j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e t h e a p p e a l i s u n t i m e l y

.

T o b e t i m e l y , a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l m u s t b e f i l e d w i t h i n 3 0 d a y s a f

t e r e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r o n

a p p e a l

. O C G A § 5

- 6

- 3 8 ( a )

. T h e p r o p e r a n d t i m e l y f i l i n g o f a not i c e o f a p p e a l i s a n a b s o l u t e

r e q u i r e m e n t t o c o n f

e r j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h i s C o u r t

. D a v is v

. S t a t e

, 3 3 0 G a

. A p p

. 7 1 1

, 7 1 1 ( 7 6 9

S E 2 d 13 3 ) ( 2 0 1 5 )

. L a m b ’ s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w a s f i l e d 6 4 d a y s a f

t e r e n t r y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s

a m e n d e d j u d g m e n t

. T h e c e r t i f i c a t e o f s e r v i c e a t t a c h e d t o t h e n o t i c e i s d a t e d F e b r u a r y 2 7

, 2 0 2 4

— before t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f L a m b ’ s 3 0

- d a y a p p e a l p e r i o d

— b u t t h e n o t i c e w a s n o t st a mped

“ f i l e d ” b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t c l e r k u n t i l A p r i l 1 1

. W e r e c o g n i z e t h a t

, a s a p r o s e p r i s o n e r

, L a m b

l i k e l y d e p e n d s u p o n c o r r e c t i o n a l p e r s o n n e l t o d i s p a t c h h i s m a i l

. N e v e r t h e l e s s

, e v e n t h o u g h

L a m b m a y h a v e a c t e d p r o m p t l y a f t e r r e c e i v i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s o r d e r

, “ h i s f i l i n g d i d n o t g e t t o

t h e s u p e r i o r c o u r t i n t i m e

. S o w e h a v e n o j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r h i s a p p e a l

. ” E b e lin g v

. S t a t e

, 3 5 5 G a

.

A p p

. 4 6 9

, 4 7 0 ( 8 4 4 S E 2 d 5 1 8 ) ( 2 0 2 0 )

.

A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s a p p e a l i s h e r e b y D I S M I S S E D

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

C le r k ’s O f f ic e

, A t l a n t a ,_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I c e r t i fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i

s a t r u e e xt r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W it n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i xe d t h e d ay a n d y e ar l a st a bo v e w r

i t t e n

.

, C l

e rk

. 

### April 24, 2024

04/24/2024
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 22, 2024. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 22, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22A0720. EBONI STEMBRIDGE v. PRIDE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC .
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion be hereby GRANTED, and jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7686

IAN CARL ALLEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT SMITH,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-341-5-BO)

Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 30, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ian Carl Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

November 2, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on November 3, 1999. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Ian Carl Allen appeals the district courts order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See Allen v. Smith, No. CA-99-341-5-BO

(E.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 1999).* 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
Order entered March 11, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00470
- CV JOHN DOE I, INDIVIDU ALLY AND AS NEXT FRI END OF JOHN DOE II, A MINOR, Appellant s
V.
RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND JIM PATTISON U. S.A., INC., Appellee s

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 15
- 07174



### O RDER Before the Court is appellants’ March 8, 2019 unopposed motion for leave to file a n amended notice of appeal. We GRANT the motion. Appellants shall file, within five days of the date of this order, an amended notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment signed on February 26, 2019.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERAND VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

** **

In connection with the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of EMRISE Corporation (the “Company”) for the periodended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify intheir capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Vice President Finance andAdministration of the Company, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

1.             theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.             theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: May 15, 2009 | By:    | /s/ CARMINE T. OLIVA                                                     |
|--------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   | Carmine T. Oliva                                                         |
|                     |   | Chief Executive Officer (principal executive  officer)                   |
|                     |   |                                                                     |
|                     |   |                                                                     |
| Dated: May 15, 2009 | By:    | /s/ D. JOHN DONOVAN                                                      |
|                     |   | D. John Donovan                                                          |
|                     |   | Vice President Finance and Administration  (principal financial officer) |

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 20, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41122 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANDRES GILBERTO GARZA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-79-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Andres Gilberto Garza-Lopez (Garza) appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for unlawfully attempting to enter the United States following deportation and removal and after having been convicted of an aggravated felony, without having obtained the consent of the Attorney General or the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Garza received a 16-level sentence enhancement due to his prior conviction for attempt to commit murder. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). He wasNo. 04-41122 -2- sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Garza argues, for the first time on appeal, that Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), should be overruled, and that Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), should be held to apply to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Because Garza raises these issues for the first time on appeal, we review only for plain error. See United States v.
Mares , __ F.3d __, No. 03-21035, 2005 WL 503715 at *7 (5th Cir. Mar. 4, 2005), petition for cert. filed , No. 04-9517 (U.S. Mar. 31, 2005). Although the decision in Almendarez-Torres has been called into question, see Shepard v. United States , 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1264 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring), the Supreme Court has not overruled it. Accordingly, Garza’s argument is foreclosed.
See United States v. Rivera , 265 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2001)

. Garza contends that if Almendarez-Torres is overruled and Blakely is held to apply to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, he may not be sentenced based on any prior convictions to which he does not admit or that are not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, Garza challenges only the fact of his prior convictions. In United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738, 764 (2005), the Supreme Court did apply Blakely to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. However, because Almendarez-Torres has not been overruled, Garza received zero criminal history pointsNo. 04-41122 -3- due to the age of his prior convictions, and Garza is not challenging the characterization of his prior conviction for attempt to commit murder as a violent felony, he has not established error, plain or otherwise, with respect to his conviction and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
§ 1.171-5 Effective date and transition rules. ( a ) *Effective date* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Sections 1.171-1 through 1.171-4 apply to bonds acquired on or after March 2, 1998. However, if a holder makes the election under § 1.171-4 for the taxable year containing March 2, 1998, or any subsequent taxable year, §§ 1.171-1 through 1.171-4 apply to bonds held on or after the first day of the taxable year in which the election is made.
( 2 ) *Transition rule for use of constant yield.* Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, § 1.171-2(a)(3) (providing that the bond premium allocable to an accrual period is determined with reference to a constant yield) does not apply to a bond issued before September 28, 1985.
( b ) *Coordination with existing election.* A holder is deemed to have made the election under § 1.171-4 for the taxable year containing March 2, 1998, if the holder elected to amortize bond premium under section 171 and that election is effective on March 2, 1998. If the holder is deemed to have made the election under § 1.171-4 for the taxable year containing March 2, 1998, §§ 1.171-1 through 1.171-4 apply to bonds acquired on or after the first day of that taxable year. See § 1.171-4(d) for rules relating to a revocation of an election under section 171.
( c ) *Accounting method changes* — ( 1 ) *Consent to change.* A holder required to change its method of accounting for bond premium to comply with §§ 1.171-1 through 1.171-3 must secure the consent of the Commissioner in accordance with the requirements of § 1.446-1(e). Paragraph (c)(2) of this section provides the Commissioner's automatic consent for certain changes. A holder making the election under § 1.171-4 does not need the Commissioner's consent to make the election.
( 2 ) *Automatic consent.* The Commissioner grants consent for a holder to change its method of accounting for bond premium with respect to taxable bonds to which §§ 1.171-1 through 1.171-3 apply. Because this change is made on a cut-off basis, no items of income or deduction are omitted or duplicated and, therefore, no adjustment under section 481 is allowed. The consent granted by this paragraph (c)(2) applies provided— ( i ) The holder elected to amortize bond premium under section 171 for a taxable year prior to the taxable year containing March 2, 1998, and that election has not been revoked;
( ii ) The change is made for the first taxable year for which the holder must account for a bond under §§ 1.171-1 through 1.171-3; and
( iii ) The holder attaches to its return for the taxable year containing the change a statement that it has changed its method of accounting under this section.
[T.D. 8746, 62 FR 68182, Dec. 31, 1997]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                          25,765
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,936
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (7,700)
<INVENTORY>                                     15,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,815
<PP&E>                                       3,632,072
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,632,072)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,373,419
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,333
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,330,372)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,380
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               110,234
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  145,747
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (35,513)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (35,513)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,513)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014052EN.01004902.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/49

---

Action brought on 1 January 2014 — Caixabank v Commission

(Case T-2/14)

2014/C 52/95

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Caixabank SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

| — | annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

Bankia

Commission

---
**Exhibit
      31.01**








**CERTIFICATION**





I,
      Patrick W. Cavanagh, certify that:





1.  I
      have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Williams Controls Inc.;





2.  Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material
      fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
      in
      light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this report;





3.  Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
      for, the periods presented in this report;





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





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





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





c)  Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that
      has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





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





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





b)  Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting.








Date:  August
                10, 2007
            
            /s/ PATRICK
              W. CAVANAGHPatrick
              W. CavanaghChief
              Executive Officer