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:

A20D0304. ERMIAS ABERRA v. IDLEWOOD CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION, INC.

In this civil action, defendant Ermias Aberra has filed a timely application for

discretionary review of the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to plaintiff

Idlewood Condominium Association, Inc. and entering final judgment in favor of

Idlewood in the total amount of $10,849.57. No discretionary application isrequired,

however, as: (i) the grant of summary judgment on any issue or as to any party may

be appealed directly under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h); (ii) under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1),

a party may file a direct appeal from “[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the

case is no longer pending in the court below, except as provided in Code Section

5-6-35”; and (iii) this action does not appear to fall within one of the categories of

casesfor which a discretionary application isrequired to seek appellate review under

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a).

Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (j), this Court “shall grant” a timely application for

discretionary review if the lower court’s order is subject to direct appeal. See, e.g.,

Granite Loan Solutions, LLC v. King, 334 Ga. App. 305, 306 (2) (779 SE2d 86)

(2015); City of Rincon v. Couch, 272 Ga. App. 411, 411-412 (612 SE2d 596) (2005). 

Accordingly, this application is hereby GRANTED. Aberra shall have ten daysfrom

the date of this order to file a notice of appeal with the trial court, if Aberra has not

March 05, 2020
already done so. The clerk of the trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this

order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

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.

03/05/2020
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Peter Pascarelli

*J. Richard Fay,*in support of the petition.

*George F. Carroll, Jr.,*assistant prosecuting attorney, in opposition.

Submitted November 26

decided December 17, 1963

The petition by the defendant for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2379
RICKY W. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CA-93-586-2, CA-94-606-2, CA-95-880-1) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 29, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky W. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Martin K. LaPointe, Terrill Elise Pierce, ADLER, KAPLAN & BEGY, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his consolidated civil actions for failure to comply with the rules of the court. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Campbell v. Federal Express Corp. , Nos. CA93-586-2; CA-94-606-2; CA-95-880-1 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 6, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

d0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138120

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138120 COA: 288637 Wayne CC: 89-014852 TERAH LEE STAMPS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the December 23, 2008 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
RICK SCOTT

Governor KEN DETZNER Secretary of State

R. A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399

- 0250

Telephone: 850.245.63 00 • www.flheritage.com Commemorating 500 years of Florida history www.fla500.com

DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES Mr. Davis Larocca September 20

, 2012

Golder Associates Inc.

5100 W. Lemon Street, Suite 208 Tamp a , Florida 33609

RE: DHR Project File No.: 201 2

- 4217 / Received by DHR: August 20, 2012

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Shady Hills Gene rating Station Expansion Project

– Addition of Generators and Switchyard 14240 Merchant Energy Way, Shady Hills, Pasco County

Dear M r. Larocca :

Our office reviewed the referenced project for possible impact to historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places . The review was conducted in

accordance with S ection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties.

A review of the Florida Master Site File data indicated that no significant archaeological or historical resources are recorded within the project area. However, due to environmental conditions consistent with those found at other archaeological sites in Pasco County and lack of professional archaeological or historical investigation, there is some potential for undiscovered archaeological sites to occur. Therefore, it is the opinion of this agency that, in addition to the standard permitting condition, this permit, if issued, sho uld include the following special condition regarding unexpected discoveries during ground disturbing activities on the property:

If prehistoric or historic artifacts, such as pottery or ceramics, stone tools or metal implements, or any other physical rem ains that could be associated with Native American cultures, or early colonial or American settlement are encountered at any time within the project site area, the permitted project should cease all activities involving subsurface disturbance in the immedi ate vicinity of such discoveries. The permittee, or other designee, should contact the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Review and Compliance Section at 850.245.6333 or 800.847.7278, as well as the appropriate permitting agen cy office. Project

activities should not resume without verbal and/or written authorization from the Division of Historical Resources. In the event that unmarked human remains are encountered during permitted activities, all work shall stop immediately a nd the proper authorities notified in

accordance with Section 872.05, Florida Statutes.Mr. Larocca

DHR Project File No.: 2012

- 4217 September 20, 2012 Page 2

For any questions concerning our comments, please contact Robin Jackson, Historic Sites Speciali st, by phone at 850.245.6333, or by electronic mail at robin.jackson@dos.myflorida.com. We appreciate your continued interest in protecting Florida’s historic properties

.

Sincerely,

Robert F. Bendus, Director

Division of Historical Resources

and Stat e Historic Preservation Officer
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No s . 1D 19

- 4252 1D20

- 116

_____________________________
W ALTON P LANTATION M ASTER A SSOCIATION , I NC

. , Appellant,

v.

B IG T IMBER , LLC a nd L ONG C REEK A DDITION , LLC
, Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County

. Jeffrey E. Lewis , Judge

. September 22, 2020

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R AY , C.J., and B ILBREY and J AY , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

C. Stephen Tatum and Dana C. Matthews, Destin
, for Appellant.

Darryl Steve Traylor, Jr. and T. A. Borowski, Jr. of Borowski & Traylor, P.A., Pensacola
, for Appellee s

.
#### § 49.4253-11 Use and retention of exemption certificates.

A separate exemption certificate (as required by §§ 49.4253-3 and 49.4253-4) shall be furnished for each message paid for as a separate item, but where periodic payments are made, a blanket certificate (for a period not to exceed four calendar quarters) may be accepted as evidence of the right to exemption. An agent of a telegraph, telephone, radio, or cable company should not accept an exemption certificate unless satisfied, on the basis of proper credentials or otherwise, that the person who signed it is the person whom he represents himself to be and that the exemption claimed is allowable under the law. Exemption certificates should be retained with the record of the services rendered for inspection by internal revenue officers as provided in section 6001 and the regulations in Subpart G of this part.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6731

MARTINA VAN HOEF,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-04-76)

Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 28, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Martina Van Hoef, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Martina Van Hoef seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint which

the district court construed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss

the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Van

Hoef v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, No. CA-04-76 (E.D.

Va. Mar. 23, 2004). 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
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 163

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 14 (legislative day, MARCH 13), 1996

Received

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1996, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 104–99 is amended by striking out

4 ‘‘March 15, 1996’’ in sections 106(c), 112, 126(c), 202(c)
2

HJ 163 RDS

1 and 214 and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘March 22, 1996’’,

2 and by inserting in section 101(a) after ‘‘The Department

3 of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

4 1996’’ the following ‘‘, H.R. 1977’’, and by inserting in

5 section 101(a) after ‘‘The Departments of Labor, Health

6 and Human Services, and Education and Related

7 Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996’’ the following

8 ‘‘, H.R. 2127’’, and that Public Law 104–92 is amended

9 by striking out ‘‘March 15, 1996’’ in section 106(c) and

10 inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘March 22, 1996’’.

Passed the House of Representatives March 14,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00177-CR

HENRY OCHOA JR.

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-11-27611-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 21, 2016
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 79 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session
H. J. RES. 79

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
   authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the physical 
             desecration of the flag of the United States.
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
                              ``Article--

    ``The Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag of the United States.''.
            Passed the House of Representatives June 28, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 79

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
   authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the physical 
             desecration of the flag of the United States.
```
§ 420.0-1 Certain existing plans may elect new provisions. ( a ) *In general.* The plan administrator (as defined in section 414(g)) of a plan that was in existence on January 1, 1974, may elect to have the provisions of the Code relating to participation, vesting, funding, and form of benefit (as in effect from time to time) apply to a plan year selected by the plan administrator which begins after September 2, 1974, but before the otherwise applicable effective dates determined under section 1017 (b) or (c), 1021, or 1024 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and to all subsequent plan years. The provisions referred to are the amendments to the Code made by sections 1011, 1012, 1013, 1015, 1016(a) (1) through (11) and (13) through (27), 1021, and 1022(b) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
( b ) *Election is irrevocable.* Any election made under this section, once made, shall be irrevocable.
( c ) *Procedure and time for making election.* An election under this section shall be made by attaching a statement to either the annual return required under section 6058(a) (or an amended return) with respect to the plan which is filed for the first plan year for which the election is effective or to a written request for a determination letter relating to the qualification of the plan under section 401 (a), 403(a), or 405(a) of the Code and, if trusteed, the exempt status under section 501(a) of the Code of a trust constituting a part of the plan. If the election is made with a written request for a determination letter, the election may be conditioned upon issuance of a favorable determination letter, and will become irrevocable upon issuance of such letter. The statement shall indicate that the election is made under section 1017
( d ) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the first plan year for which the election is effective.
(Sec. 1017(d), Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 934)
#### Allan J. FAVISH;, Plaintiff—Appellant, Sheila Foster Anthony, et al., Intervenors—Appellees, v. OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, Defendant-Appellee. Allan J. Favish;, Plaintiff—Appellee, Sheila Foster ANTHONY, et al., Intervenors—Appellants, v. Office of Independent Counsel, Defendant. Allan J. Favish, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Office of Independent Counsel, Defendant—Appellant, and Sheila Foster Anthony, et al., Defendant-Intervenors.

Nos. 01-55487, 01-55788, 01-55789.

D.C. Nos. CV-97-01479-WDK, CV-97-01479-WDK-05.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*864Submitted May 20, 2002.*

Decided June 6, 2002.

Before PREGERSON, NOONAN, and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER **

The order of the district court of January 11, 2001 is AFFIRMED, except that photo 3-VF’s body looking down from top of berm is to be withheld.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,

dissenting.

I continue to maintain that the record before the district court before remand was “sufficiently detailed for the district court to resolve the issues in this case” without an in camera review of the ten photographs at issue. *Favish v. OIC,*217 F.3d 1168, 1186 (9th Cir.2000). Nevertheless, having personally viewed the ten photographs, I adhere to my prior conclusion that only the photograph of Foster’s right hand clutching the gun should be released because “[t]he public’s interest in disclosure of the remaining nine, never-before-released post-mortem Polaroid photographs does not outweigh the privacy interests of Vincent Foster’s surviving family in their nondisclosure.” *Id.*
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 Maritime Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Maritime Commission.

*Citation of Previous Notice of Agreements Filed:*74 FR 37709, July 29, 2009.                

*Previous Notice of Agreements Filed Dated:*                     July 24, 2009.                

*Correction to the Notice of Agreements Filed:*                     All of the Filing Parties and the complete Synopsis of Agreement No. 201204 were not printed in the original Notice. The complete Notice should read as follows:                

*Agreement No.:*                     201204.                

*Title:*                     Port of Houston Authority and Houston Marine Terminal Operators/Freight Handlers Agreement.                

*Parties:*                     Port of Houston Authority; Ceres Gulf, Inc.; Chaparral Stevedoring Company of Texas, Inc.; CT Stevedoring, Inc. dba Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co.; Ports America Texas, Inc.; GP Terminals LLC; Shippers Stevedoring Company; and SSA Gulf, Inc.                

*Filing Party:*                     Erik A. Eriksson, Esq.; Port of Houston Authority; Executive Office; 111 East Loop; Houston, TX 77029-4327.                

*Synopsis:*                     The agreement authorizes the Port of Houston Authority and seven affiliated freight handlers to discuss and voluntarily agree on matters of common interest at the Port of Houston.                

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.                

Tanga S. FitzGibbon,

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9-19208 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Melvan D. EVANS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 99-10221.

D.C. No. CR-97-00170-ARM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 14, 2002.

Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Melvan D. Evans appeals his conviction pursuant to guilty plea and his 121-month sentence for importation of crystal methamphetamine, a.k.a. “ice,” in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Evans’ counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no meritorious issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Evans has not filed a supplemental pro se brief.

Counsel has identified, and properly rejected, one potential issue for review on direct appeal: the district court’s imposition of a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice. The district court did not err in applying the enhancement to Evans, who absconded from supervision and as a result failed to appear at a hearing on his alleged violations of supervised release. *See United States v. Draper,*996 F.2d 982, 986 (9th Cir.1993) (affirming obstruction enhancement for defendant who absconded after having agreed to terms of pretrial release).

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988) discloses no issues for review. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.