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:

A22A1165. JUDE OWUMI v. PROPERTY SERVICES OF ATLANTA.

Property Services of Atlanta (“Property Services”) filed a dispossessory

proceeding in magistrate court against, inter alia, Jude Owumi. The magistrate court

entered judgment against Owumi, and Owumi appealed to superior court. The

superior court entered judgment in favor of Property Services, and Owumi again

appeals. Property Services has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that we

lack jurisdiction. We agree.

Appeals from superior court decisions reviewing lower court decisions by

certiorari or de novo proceedings must be initiated by filing an application for

discretionary appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), (b); Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga. App. 874,

875 (581 SE2d 333) (2003). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure

isjurisdictional.” Hair Restoration Specialists v. State of Ga., 360 Ga. App. 901, 903

(862 SE2d 564) (2021) (punctuation omitted). Thus, Owumi’s failure to follow the 

proper procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, Property

April 04, 2022
Services’ motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the 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.

04/04/2022
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.1062 Examination.

(a) *Examination.* The Office shall make an examination pursuant to title 35, United States Code, of an international design application designating the United States.

(b) *Timing.* For each international design application to be examined under paragraph (a) of this section, the Office shall, subject to Rule 18(1)(c)(ii), send to the International Bureau within 12 months from the publication of the international registration under Rule 26(3) a notification of refusal (§ 1.1063) where it appears that the applicant is not entitled to a patent under the law with respect to any industrial design that is the subject of the international registration.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
§ 52b.11 What are the requirements for acquisition and modernization of existing facilities? Grant awards for the acquisition and modernization of existing facilities are permitted if authorized by the statutes authorizing the construction grant program and shall be subject to the requirements of this section. ( a ) *Minimum standards of construction and equipment.* A determination by the Director that the facility conforms (or upon completion of any necessary construction will conform) to the minimum standards of construction and equipment as set forth in § 52b.12 shall be obtained before entering into a final or unconditional contract for the acquisition and/or modernization of facilities. Where the Director finds that exceptions to or modifications of these minimum standards would be consistent with the purposes of the applicable section of the Act under which the acquisition or modernization is supported, the Director may authorize the exceptions or modifications.
( b ) *Estimated cost of acquisition and remodeling: suitability of facility.* Each application for a project involving the acquisition of existing facilities shall include in the detailed estimates of the costs of the project, the cost of acquiring the facilities, and any cost of remodeling, renovating or altering the facilities to serve the purposes for which they are acquired. The application shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that the architectural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and other pertinent features of the facility, as modified by any proposed expansion, remodeling, renovation, or alteration, will be suitable for the purposes of the applicable sections of the Act.
( c ) *Bona fide sale.* Grant awards for the acquisition of existing facilities shall be subject to the condition that the acquisition constitutes a bona fide sale involving an actual cost to the applicant and will result in additional or improved facilities for purposes of the applicable provisions of the Act.
( d ) *Facility previously funded by a federal grant.* No grant for the acquisition or modernization of a facility which has previously been funded in whole or in part by a federal grant for construction, acquisition, or equipment shall serve either to reduce or restrict the liability of the applicant or any other transferor or transferee from any obligation of accountability imposed by the Federal Government by reason of the prior grant.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0925-0424; expires November 30, 2001)
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 OR 15D-14 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Raul S. McQuivey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Sutron Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not
contain any untrue statement of a 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 quaterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quaterly 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
quarterly report;

4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have: a) designed
such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared; b) evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): a) all significant deficiencies in the design
or operation of internal controls which could adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for
the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal
controls; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal controls; and

6. The registrants other certifying officers and I have
indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions
with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  November 13, 2003
By /s/ Raul S. McQuivey 		Raul S. McQuviey, Chairman of
						the Board of Directors
						and President
APPENDIX I - PRODUCT LIST

EPA Registration Number: Product Name

4713-5 Kenya Pyrethrum Extract Refined Concentrate
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|
| **About             the NFIP****Ask             the Expert****Flood             Insurance Library****News             & Events****NFIP             Site Index****Search             the NFIP Site****NFIP Home             Page****Flood             Hazard Mapping****For the Media****Mitigation****Storm Watch**
**How the NFIP Works**
**The Emergency Program****The Regular Program**Updated: December 28,1998
FEMA:          Home |  Feedback | Library         |  Privacy Policy | Search         |  Site Help |          Site Index |
#### § 201.5 [Reserved]
* 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 December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20885 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BILAL TROY FARAHKHAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-24-1

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Bilal Troy Farahkhan, federal prisoner # 72541-079, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his motion to modify his sentence, purportedly filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b)(2)(B) and F ED . R. CRIM . P. 35. The Government argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Farahkhan’s motion to modify. As the Government notes, “§ 3582(b)(2)(B)” does not exist. A district court may modify the imposed term of imprisonment under limited circumstances. § 3582(c). Because Farahkhan’s motion did not fall under any of the provisions ofNo. 05-20885 -2- § 3582(c), it was unauthorized and without jurisdictional basis.
See United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994). To the extent that the district court construed the motion as an attempted successive § 2255 motion, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper because Farahkhan had not received permission from this court to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Key , 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed as frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Farahkhan is hereby warned that any further repetitious or frivolous filings, including those attempting to circumvent statutory restrictions on filing second or successive § 2255 motions, may result in the imposition of sanctions against him. These sanctions may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7780** 

JOHN A. ONWUKA , Plaintiff

- Appell ant ,

v. UNKNOWNS, (names not readily available) , Defendant

- Appell ee , and

HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL JAIL , Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. James C. Cacheris , Senior District Judge. ( 1 :11

- cv - 0 1398

- JCC

- IDD )

Submitted : February 21, 201 3 Decided: February 25, 2013

Before AGEE and DAVIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

John A. Onwuka , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
John A. Onwuka appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Onwuka v. Unknowns , No. 1:11

- cv - 01398

- JCC

- IDD (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 13, 2012; entered Sept. 14, 2012)

. We further deny Onwuka’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi als before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------

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

The undersigned have executed this certification in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005. The undersigned hereby certify
that to our knowledge:

(1) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:   August 15, 2005               /s/Raul S. McQuivey
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Raul S. McQuivey
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
                                       (Principal Executive Officer)




Dated:   August 15, 2005               /s/Sidney C. Hooper
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Sidney C. Hooper
                                       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                                       (Principal Accounting Officer)
**
**Exhibit 32.1**

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 Annual Report of Green Thumb Industries Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ben Kovler, Chief Executive Officer, certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 
**GREEN THUMB INDUSTRIES INC.**
 

*/s/Benjamin Kovler*
By: Benjamin KovlerTitle: Chief Executive Officer
Date: April 15, 2020 

 
**
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


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





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  August 9, 2002                    /s/ Michael L. DeMarco
                                   ---------------------------------

                                        Michael L. DeMarco,
                                        Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6960

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARK EARL HENDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,

District Judge. (CR-99-214; CA-03-480-2)

Submitted: August 13, 2004 Decided: September 9, 2004

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John David Wooton, WOOTON, WOOTON & FRAGILE, Beckley, West

Virginia, Marcia Gail Shein, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA G. SHEIN, P.C.,

Decatur, Georgia, for Appellant. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mark Earl Henderson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Henderson cannot

appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a

certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appealability

will not issue absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A habeas

appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find 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,

326 (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 Henderson 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
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3438

___________ Elsie Mayard, * * Appellant. * On Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District of * Minnesota. Dennis Meyer, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 16, 1998 Filed: November 25, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, BRIGHT, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. This ca se has survived from our prior opinion Mayard v. Hopwood , 105 F.3 d 1226 (8t h Cir. 1997), which permitted the continuance of Ms. Mayard's civil actio n againstpolice officer Dennis Meyer for violating her constitutional rights by usin g excessive force while transporting Mayard in a police vehicle to police headquarter s in St. Paul. The district court heard the excessive force case, submitted the issues to the jury, and entered a judgment of dismissal in confo rmity with the jury verdict for the defendant. On this appeal, Mayard asserts error in the district court’s refusal to permit herto amend her complaint to assert additional claims for other violations of he r constitutional rights by police. Addi tionally, she asserts error in the trial judge's ruling-2-

exclud ing her evidence relating to alleged improper conduct by the police whic h oc curredimmediately prior to her arrest and the transporting of her to polic e headquarters via a police vehicle. Both rulings fall within the area of discretion by the district judge. The record does no t establish any abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R
. 47B. A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.