alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42206.

#### WESTMORELAND v. THE STATE.

Deen, Judge.

1. Permission freely and voluntarily given by a suspect to police officers to search property of which he is the owner waives the necessity of a warrant. *Ferguson v. State,*218 Ga. 173 (8) (126 SE2d 798) ; *Young v. State,*113 Ga. App. 497 (148 SE2d 461). The defendant testified in his own behalf in this case that when enforcement officials came on the premises in which he had a store and trailer in which he lived the following conversation ensued: “They had a little old piece of paper there and said, ‘We would like to search’, and I said, ‘What for?’ and they said, ‘Anything we can find.’ I told them to go ahead, I hadn’t broke no law, and they went in.”. Indubitably, the enumerations of error complaining that the State did not prove the issuance of a valid search warrant are without merit, as this constituted a waiver of the defendant’s rights to insist upon such a warrant prior to' the search.

2. The third complaint is that two cases of beer were admitted in evidence on the trial of the case. The only objection to the introduction of this physical evidence was on the ground that it had not been identified. Since there was in fact positive identification, the objection was without merit.

3. Complaint that the court failed to charge a certain provision of law is without merit where no objection was made to- the trial judge as to the charge as given and his attention was not called to the alleged omission. *Code Ann.*§ 70-207.

*390Submitted September 12, 1966

Decided September 29, 1966.

*May Ion K. London, Irwin R. Kimzey,*for appellant.

*Jeff C. Wayne, Solicitor General, C. Frank Strickland, Jr.,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7104

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL L. MOORE, a/k/a Gadget,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:97-cr-00362-JCC)

Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 23, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. David Benjamin Joyce, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael L. Moore appeals the district court’s orders

denying his motion for reduction of sentence filed pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) and subsequent motion for

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Moore’s

motion for reduction of sentence for the reasons stated by the

district court. See United States v. Moore, No. 1:97-cr-00362-JCC

(E.D. Va. June 1, 2006). Moreover, the district court did not

abuse its discretion when it denied Moore’s motion for

reconsideration, and we affirm that order as well. 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
#### § 70.3 Determination of Secretary.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 88 FR 10037, Feb. 16, 2023.

###### Cross Reference

This amendment was delayed until Feb. 16, 2025, at 88 FR 90120, Dec. 29, 2023.

For each fiscal year, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs will determine whether funds are available for paying expenses of VHA beneficiary travel under 38 U.S.C. 111. If the Secretary determines that funds are available for such purpose, VA will make payment for expenses of such travel in accordance with the provisions of this part.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 111, 501, 1701, 1714, 1720, 1728, 1782, 1783, E.O. 11302)
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2671 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2671

 To designate the United States courthouse located at 301 North Miami 
    Avenue, Miami, Florida, as the ``C. Clyde Atkins United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2007

 Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (for herself, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Mica, Mr. 
Buchanan, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
 Florida, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Keller of Florida, Mr. 
   Meek of Florida, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Klein of 
 Florida, Mr. Wexler, Ms. Castor, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Crenshaw, 
Mr. Boyd of Florida, Mr. Mack, Mr. Mahoney of Florida, Mr. Stearns, Mr. 
   Feeney, Mr. Bilirakis, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Young of 
  Florida, and Mr. Weldon of Florida) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States courthouse located at 301 North Miami 
    Avenue, Miami, Florida, as the ``C. Clyde Atkins United States 
                             Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse at 301 North Miami Avenue, Miami, 
Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``C. Clyde Atkins United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``C. Clyde 
Atkins United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     I
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   jun-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,204
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  27,075
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,375
<INVENTORY>                                    883
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               32,377
<PP&E>                                         39,599
<DEPRECIATION>                                 14,950
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 103,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          41,219
<BONDS>                                        20,517
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    8,882
<COMMON>                                       64,701
<OTHER-SE>                                     (34,438)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   103,144
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               62,349
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  50,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               11,579
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,692
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,467)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,477)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,577)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.04)
        





</TABLE>
CAMBODIAN • APRI
5'4"

5'5"

5'6"

5'7"

5'8"

5'9"

5'10"

5'11"

6'0"

6'1"

6'2"

6'3"

6'4"

145

150

155

159

164

169

174

179

184

189

194

200

205

5'4"

5'5"

5'6"

5'7"

5'8"

5'9"

5'10"

5'11"

6'0"

6'1"

6'2"

6'3"

6'4"

134

138

142

146

151

155

160

165

169

174

179

184

189

5'4"

5'5"

5'6"

5'7"

5'8"

5'9"

5'10"

5'11"

6'0"

6'1"

6'2"

6'3"

6'4"

151

156

161

166

171

176

181

186

191

197

202

208

213

NIH Publication No. 04-5524 CAMBODIAN • APRIL 2004

NDEP-74CA
**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 906 OF THE      SARBANES-**
**OXLEY      ACT**

|   | (3) | The                Form 10-K report for the year ended June 30, 2008, filed with the                Securities and Exchange Commission on September 26, 2008, fully complies                with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities                and                Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (4) | The                information contained in the Form 10-K report for the year ended                June 30,                2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition                and results of operations of Sharps Compliance                Corp. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                DAVID P. TUSA         |
|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   |                                     |
|   | David                P. Tusa             |
|   | Executive                Vice President, |
|   | Chief                Financial Officer,  |
|   | Business                Development and  |
|   | Corporate                Secretary       |

----
§ 1002.110 Publication of data and other disclosures. ( a ) *Publication of small business lending application registers and associated financial institution information.* The Bureau shall make available to the public generally the data reported to it by financial institutions pursuant to § 1002.109, subject to deletions or modifications made by the Bureau if the Bureau determines that the deletion or modification of the data would advance a privacy interest. The Bureau shall make such data available on an annual basis.
( b ) *Publication of aggregate data.* The Bureau may compile and aggregate data submitted by financial institutions pursuant to § 1002.109, and make any compilations or aggregations of such data publicly available as the Bureau deems appropriate.
( c ) *Statement of financial institution's small business lending data available on the Bureau's website.* A covered financial institution shall make available to the public on its website, or otherwise upon request, a statement that the covered financial institution's small business lending application register, as modified by the Bureau pursuant to § 1002.110(a), is or will be available from the Bureau. A financial institution shall use language provided by the Bureau, or substantially similar language, to satisfy the requirement to provide a statement pursuant to this paragraph (c).
( d ) *Availability of statements.* A covered financial institution shall make the notice required by paragraph (c) of this section available to the public on its website when it submits a small business lending application register to the Bureau pursuant to § 1002.109(a)(1), and shall maintain the notice for as long as it has an obligation to retain its small business lending application registers pursuant to § 1002.111(a).
( e ) *Further disclosure prohibited* — ( 1 ) *Disclosure by a financial institution.* A financial institution shall not disclose or provide to a third party the information it collects pursuant to § 1002.107(a)(18) and (19) except to further compliance with the Act or this part or as required by law.
( 2 ) *Disclosure by a third party.* A third party that obtains information collected pursuant to § 1002.107(a)(18) and (19) for the purpose of furthering compliance with the Act or this part is prohibited from any further disclosure of such information except to further compliance with the Act or this part or as required by law.
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 May 25, 2010

d0517 

# Order

May 25, 2010

140015

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140015 COA: 293563 Macomb CC: 1 991-000663-FC ALEXIS AYALA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 23, 2009 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).
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 1, 2021 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2021-1, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





1. CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





2. The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.





3. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2021 and ending on February 28, 2022 and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.








Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 27th day of May, 2022.





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Andrew J. McMonigle


Vice President and Treasurer
Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership State Table

Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership State Table.htm[11/3/2015 10:10:11 AM]

About FSA Ask FSA Contact Us En Español

United States Department of Agriculture

Farm Service Agency

MENU

Site Map Forms Help

Related Topics

BCAP Project Area

 Information

Project Area FAQ's

NEPA for BCAP

Recently Added Items

Historical BCAP Data

BCAP Handbook

Reference

Home / Programs and Services / Energy Programs / Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership -

 State Table

Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership - State Table

State

Primary

 Responsible

 State

 Agency/Offce

BIP Federal

 Funding Amount

Proposed

 Stations

Proposed

 Pumps

Proposed

 Tanks

Colorado

Colorado

 Department of

 Agriculture

$ 600,000.00 7 28 7

Florida

Florida

 Department of

 Agriculture

 and

 Consumer

 Services

$ 15,997,792.68 130 892 70

Illinois

Illinois

 Department of

 Commerce

 and Economic

 Opportunity

$ 11,979,912.75 65 428 54

Indiana

Indiana Offce

 of Energy

 Development

$ 895,000.00 110 110 0
Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership State Table

Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership State Table.htm[11/3/2015 10:10:11 AM]

Iowa

Iowa

 Department of

 Transportation

$ 5,000,000.00 100 187 25

Kansas

Kansas

 Department of

 Agriculture

$ 1,300,000.00 170 174 0

Louisiana

Louisiana

 Department of

 Agriculture

 and Forestry

$ 1,699,974.66 11 110 11

Michigan

Michigan

 Department of

 Agriculture &

 Rural

 Development

$ 3,000,000.00 16 89 20

Minnesota

Minnesota

 Department of

 Agriculture

$ 8,000,000.00 165 620 92

Missouri

Missouri

 Department of

 Agriculture

$ 2,875,284.00 166 171 41

Nebraska

Nebraska

 Energy Offce $ 2,285,000.00 32 80 20

North

 Carolina

North Carolina

 Department of

 Agriculture &

 Consumer

 Services

$ 5,000,000.00 37 190 0

North Dakota

North Dakota

 Department of

 Commerce

$ 1,200,000.00 12 90 12
Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership State Table

Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership State Table.htm[11/3/2015 10:10:11 AM]

Ohio

Ohio

 Department of

 Agriculture

$ 3,388,036.07 41 148 4

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania

 Department of

 Agriculture

$ 7,000,000.00 79 308 0

South

 Dakota

South Dakota

 Governor's

 Offce of

 Economic

 Development

$ 1,500,000.00 34 74 0

Texas

Texas

 Department of

 Agriculture

$ 17,000,000.00 148 763 39

VirginiaMaryland

Virginia

 Department of

 Mines,

 Minerals and

 Energy

$ 4,998,108.20 41 191 20

West Virginia

West Virginia

 Division of

 Energy

$ 2,500,000.00 22 107 0

Wisconsin

Public Service

 Commission

 of Wisconsin

$ 3,700,000.00 100 120 100

TOTAL $ 99,919,108.36 1,486 4,880 515

FSA Home USDA.gov Common Questions Site Map USA.gov White House

FOIA Privacy Policy Policies and Links Accessibility Statement

Nondiscrimination Statement Information Quality
### 46:

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Km. Bert Ford, kdainistrator Texas Liquor Control Board hu~tln, Texas Dear~Slrr



### Tourinquiry of 

### coo "Do06 the word this quertion: iteal tadlvlthe Oerarit

10 porated olty la

11 be rntitlaato reeoll tar

diapeawia

.llquor

l The bldsre of m&ah 0 mrohaos llquor Srcsm &+owita in this State. a perknit

is tsowhtmmt b4 cy regl~terodwith the Stab ~;~:~ust

eepley and~havo on 'duty 

### e&la.torsd

phnmaeiat

ad must ratloa a8 6 pharrvlw SW at 

### leadi n tha partioular ~politlaalaubdlripsfiaic:,ia

aought.. * Se&ion 10 or Artiala 1 US the liquor Control lot provides, among other things, that3-. 

### 463

130% Bert Ford,

.Bottlerls,

. _- shall give or PackageStore Permit under this Aot

notioe-OS euoh applioationby publication

.- . for two (e) oomeautlve issues in a newspaper or general olroulationpublishedin the olty or town In whloh applioant'splaoe OS business is looated. Provided, h-ever, that in such lnstanoeswhere no newspaper is publishedin the city or town, then the same shall be publishedIn a newspaperOS general olroulationpublishedin the county where the applioant's business is located,
..." Section 13 OS Article 1 OS the Liquor ControlAot provides: "Any permit granted under this Aot shall be a purely personal prlv1lege.v The Liquor Control **Act** Is restrlotlve. The evident **pur pose**  OS the provisionsnith referenoe to pharmaoypellpits is to limit those eligible Sor the permit 80~ as to proteot the partioular oommunity from being floodednith mushroom phannaoies dispensing liquor under liquor penuits. The quotationabove rrom section 10 OS the **AOt** etldsnoesthat the Legislaturehad in mind inaorporated. ofties and preoinotsas politicalsubdlvisions 

### or the State. Ih view oS the quoted provisionsapd the evidentpurpose or 'the Aot, it ia our opinion that the Legislature,by the language epartloularpolltioal subdlvision,v meant the part& aular subdlvlslonin~uhlch the business is loaated at the time the applioation is *do, and that If that business 1.r looated wlthln an,lnoorporatedoity, then the pharmaoy must have been in operationwlthln the lnoorporated aity for a period OS two roars. In our opini.0~ the ph.rnse tmsd does not reier to the oounty as the **pariAOUlar** polltioal~subdiv&sJon, but it does reter to the oitp or the preoinot in whioh the business is looated and has been operatedSor a period OS two years.

AITRoVEDAUG 3, l939 Youra very ~txuly
**ATTORNZT** GBAHUU, OF TEXAS 

# 5LLGU.-
ATTORNEY GEWRAL 03 TE#,S ASR;pbp 8. Rollins Asslataat
42159.

#### BRAWNER v. WILKINS.

Frankum, Judge.

1. Where a suit for unliquidated damages is in default and is tried before a jury in the absence of the defendant and his counsel, and where thereafter the defendant files a timely motion for a new trial on the general grounds only which the court overrules, the judgment overruling the motion, until it is reversed or set aside by some means known to the law, constitutes the law of the case that the verdict was authorized by the evidence. Accordingly, after having overruled such motion, the court did not have jurisdiction thereafter to grant an extraordinary motion for a new trial on the general grounds which was filed more than one year after the rendition of the verdict in the case and more than six months after the judgment overruling the original motion for a new trial.

2. In any case where a motion for a new trial is made more than 30 days after the entry of the judgment on the verdict, some good reason must be shown why the motion was not made within the time allowed by law. *Code Ann.*§§ 70-301 *264and 70-303. It is neither good reason for granting such an extraordinary motion nor grounds for a new trial that neither the defendant nor his counsel had knowledge that the case was on the calendar for trial on the day the verdict and judgment was rendered, or that counsel for the movant merely failed to appear to prosecute the original motion for a new trial, no reason for such failures being shown in the grounds of the extraordinary motion for a new trial. *Warren v. Purtell,*63 Ga. 428; *Cauthen v. Barnesville Sav. Bank,*69 Ga. 767; *Anderson v. Fulton County Home Builders,*147 Ga. 104 (92 SE 934); *Lovelace v. Lovelace,*179 Ga. 822 (177 SE 686) ; *Caylor v. Wheat,*210 Ga. 429, 431 (2) (80 SE2d 688); *Farmers State Bank v. Maddox Coffee Co.,*37 Ga. App. 804 (142 SE 198). Furthermore, even where the grounds of a motion for a new trial based on the failure of counsel to appear show providential cause therefor, it is essential, before it may be considered that the defendant show that it had a meritorious defense to the action. *Atkinson v. First Nat. Bank of Hawkinsville,*138 Ga. 127 (2) (74 SE 1030).

Argued July 5, 1966

Decided September 6, 1966.

*Freeman & Hawkins, Thomas H. Harper, Jr., Paul M. Hawkins,*for appellant.

3. The extraordinary motion for a new trial in this case wholly fails to set forth any facts constituting providential cause. Neither is it shown therein or by exhibit attached thereto that defendant has a meritorious defense to the plaintiff’s claim. Under these circumstances the trial judge abused his discretion in granting the defendant’s extraordinary motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*