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:

A16D0048. RICO T. WRIGHT v. THE STATE.

Rico T. Wright, who is proceeding pro se, was convicted of two counts of

aggravated assault. Wright challenged his convictions by direct appeal to this Court,

and the judgment was affirmed. Wright v. State, 302 Ga. App. 101 (690 SE2d 220)

(2010). Proceeding pro se, Wright has filed this application for discretionary appeal

from an order denying his “Motion to Vacate Void Judgment,” in which he argues

that his aggravated assault convictions should have been merged. We lack

jurisdiction for two reasons.

First, we held on direct appeal that the jury was authorized to convict Wright

on both counts of aggravated assault. Id. at 102 (1). This Court’s affirmance is res

judicata. Stirling v. State, 199 Ga. App. 877 (406 SE2d 282) (1991). “It is axiomatic

that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum. The same is true of appeals of

the same issue on the same grounds.” Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 (534

SE2d 464) (2000); see also Jordan v. State, 253 Ga. App. 510, 511 (2) (559 SE2d

528) (2002). Thus, Wright is estopped from seeking further judicial review on this

issue. 

Second, a motion seeking to challenge an allegedly invalid or void judgment

of conviction “is not one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of

a judgment in a criminal case.” Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010).

Therefore, Wright is not authorized to collaterally attack his convictions in this

manner, and his application must be dismissed for this reason as well. See id.; see 

October 14, 2015
also Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686 SE2d 786) (2009) (overruling Chester

v. State, 284 Ga. 162, 162-163 (2) (664 SE2d 220) (2008)); Matherlee v. State, 303

Ga. App. 765 (694 SE2d 665) (2010).

Accordingly, this application is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

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.

10/14/2015
----

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS      ADOPTED      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1)    | The                Report                fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of                the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));                and |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|   | (2)    | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company.                          |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |

|   | /s/                Stephen                M. O’Hara           |   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | Stephen                M.                O’Hara               |   |
|   | President                and                Chief Executive Officer |   |
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 11, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D21-1477 Lower Tribunal No. F15-7423 

### Blitz Monestine, Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carmen Cabarga, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kayla Heather McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, SCALES and HENDON, JJ. PER CURIAM.Affirmed. State v. Gutierrez, 10 So. 3d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

2
#### § 302-11.21 How long do I have to submit my claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with my residence transactions?

Your claim for reimbursement should be submitted to your agency as soon as possible after the transaction occurred. However, the settlement dates for the sale and purchase or lease termination transactions for which reimbursement is requested must occur not later than 1 year after the day you report for duty at your new official station. (See § 302-11.23.)

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18343, Apr. 1, 2011]
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 Quarterly Report of Anaren, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence A. Sala,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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:

      (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.

/s/ Lawrence A. Sala
-------------------------------------
Lawrence A. Sala
President and Chief Executive Officer

-------------------------------------
Date: November 8, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Anaren, Inc. and will be retained by Anaren, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       30
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> To: Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim DeMocker/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Schwab, Margo" <Margo_Schwab@omb.eop.gov>, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 12/15/2011 04:24 PM Subject: Re: RIA Executive Summary

Hi Bryan, We agree with these edits.

Regards, Cortney

----- Original Message ----- From: Hubbell.Bryan@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Hubbell.Bryan@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 04:09 PM To: Higgins, Cortney Cc: Lamson.Amy@epamail.epa.gov <Lamson.Amy@epamail.epa.gov>; DeMocker.Jim@epamail.epa.gov <DeMocker.Jim@epamail.epa.gov>; Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov <Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov>; Schwab, Margo; Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov <Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov> Subject: RE: RIA Executive Summary

Cortney, we are okay with most of your edits. We had one alternative edit towards the end of ES1., shown in the attached. Please let us know if it is acceptable to you. If so, we will add this to the overall RIA package and make the other edits to Chapter 5 and 7 that we discussed earlier today. We expect the overall RIA will be coming over sometime tonight.

Thanks, Bryan

(See attached file: Executive Summary_InteragencycommentsunderEO13563_12152011_EPAresponse.docx)

Dr. Bryan J. Hubbell Leader, Risk and Benefits Group Health and Environmental Impacts Division U.S. EPA/OAQPS (C504-02) RTP, NC 27711 (919) 541-0621

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> To: Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Schwab, Margo" <Margo_Schwab@omb.eop.gov> Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, LydiaWegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim DeMocker/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 12/15/2011 03:08 PM Subject: RE: RIA Executive Summary

Hi, Attached are interagency comments on this draft of the executive summary. Your redline changes have been accepted and changes have made to that version. Please let me know if you have any questions or

comments.

Regards, Cortney

From: Lamson.Amy@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Lamson.Amy@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 1:47 PM To: Higgins, Cortney; Schwab, Margo Cc: Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov; Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov; Hubbell.Bryan@epamail.epa.gov; DeMocker.Jim@epamail.epa.gov Subject: RIA Executive Summary

Cortney and Margo,

Attached is the revised Executive Summary, as requested.

Thank you!

Amy Lamson Risk and Benefits Group Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards US Environmental Protection Agency 109 TW Alexander Dr. (C439-02) Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: (919) 541-4383 Fax: (919) 541-0839(See attached file: Executive Summary_InteragencycommentsunderEO13563_12152011.docx)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
Supreme Court Cause No. DA 22

- 0 454

__________________________________________________________________ IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

ROBERT J. BURNS

,

Petitioner/ Appell ant

,

and

LEE MALDEREY BURNS

,

Respondent/ Appell ee

. ORDER GRANTING

EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon consideration of Appel lant' s Unopposed M otion for Extension of Time

to File Opening Brief

, and for good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to

and including May 1 9 , 2023

, within w hich to file h is Opening Brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court April 17 2023

04/17/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0454
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000108

05-SEP-2018

09:53 AM
§ 102-37.100 What factors will GSA consider in allocating surplus property among SASPs? GSA allocates property among the SASPs on a fair and equitable basis using the following factors: ( a ) Extraordinary needs caused by disasters or emergency situations.
( b ) Requests from the Department of Defense (DOD) for DOD-generated property to be allocated through a SASP for donation to a specific service educational activity.
( c ) Need and usability of property, as reflected by requests from SASPs. GSA will also give special consideration to requests transmitted through the SASPs by eligible donees for specific items of property. (Requests for property to be used as is will be given preference over cannibalization requests.)
( d ) States in greatest need of the type of property to be allocated where the need is evidenced by a letter of justification from the intended donee.
( e ) Whether a SASP has already received similar property in the past, and how much.
( f ) Past performance of a SASP in effecting timely pickup or removal of property approved for transfer and making prompt distribution of property to eligible donees.
( g ) The property's condition and its original acquisition cost.
( h ) Relative neediness of each State based on the State's population and per capita income.
Exhibit 11.2

                              ANDERSEN GROUP, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                    FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 31, 1997


<TABLE>

<CAPTION>
<S>                                                         <C>                <C>                             <C>    

                                                                               NUMBER OF SHARES OF
                                                                                COMMON STOCK AND
                                                                                  COMMON STOCK
                                                                                   EQUIVALENTS
                                                                                   OUTSTANDING

                                                              NET INCOME

Calculation of Primary Earnings Per Share:
Unadjusted amounts                                                $2,181,000              1,934,478
Impact of exercise of stock options,
  net of treasury shares that could be
  repurchased using average price of
  stock of $5.55 per share                                                -                  18,967
                                                          ------------------            -----------
                                                                  $2,181,000              1,953,445
                                                                  ==========              =========
Primary Earnings Per Share                                                                                     $1.12

Calculation of Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share:
Unadjusted amounts                                                $2,181,000              1,934,478
Impact of conversion of 10.5%
  Convertible Subordinated Debentures                                189,000                370,322
Impact of conversion of
  Preferred Stock                                                    209,000                496,227
Impact of exercise of stock
  options, net of treasury shares
  that could be repurchased using
  period end price of $6.75 per share                                      -                 26,329
                                                          ------------------           ------------
                                                                  $2,579,000              2,827,356
                                                                  ==========              =========

Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share                                                                               $0.91

</TABLE>
#### § 105-72.203 Debarment and suspension.

Federal awarding agencies and recipients shall comply with the nonprocurement debarment and suspension common rule implementing E.O.s 12549 and 12689, “Debarment and Suspension.” This common rule restricts subawards and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs or activities.
No. 10-11261.

#### Helm *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### § 102-41.150 What special information do we provide on reports of unclaimed personal property?

On reports of unclaimed personal property, you must provide the report or case number assigned by your agency, property description and location, and indicate the property as unclaimed and the estimated fair market value.
EXHIBIT 15.1

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The firm PricewaterhouseCoopers was previously the independent registered public accounting firm for Celulosa Arauco y Constitución
S.A. (the Company), and reported on the financial statements of the Company for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010. We have read the Companys statements included under Item 16F of its Annual Report on
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, and agree with such statements except that we are not in a position to agree or disagree with the Companys statement that newly engaged accountants were not consulted regarding
any of the matters or events set forth in Item 16F(a)(2) of Form 20-F.



|                          
|--------------------------
|Very truly yours,         
|                          
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
|Date: April 30, 2013
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DAVID CARROLL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-94-519; CA-04-1279-1)

Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: August 31, 2005

Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Carroll, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, 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:

David Carroll seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

dismissing as successive and untimely his motion under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000), and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment

filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v.

Angelone, 369 F.3d 368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 prisoner satisfies 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, 336-38 (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 that Carroll

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Carroll’s notice of appeal and

informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or

successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). We conclude that Carroll has not

satisfied the applicable standards necessary to obtain
- 3 -

authorization under the statute. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; In re Williams,

330 F.3d 277, 281-82 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we decline to

authorize Carroll to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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
EXHIBIT 31.a

I, John P. Manning, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "Assignor");
2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 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 Assignor as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The Assignor'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 Assignor and have:



1. 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 Assignor, 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;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the Assignor'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
3. 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



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



1. 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 Assignor's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Assignor's internal control over financial reporting.



|Date:  August 20, 2004 | /s/ John P. Manning 
|---------------------- | --------------------
|                       | John P. Manning     
|                       | Director, President 
|                       | (Principal Executive
|                       | Officer), BCTC IV   
|                       | Assignor Corp.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                           TOMORROW'S MORNING, INC.
                       (A Development Stage Enterprise)

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION>
                                                    JUNE 30, 1997       JUNE 30, 1996
                                                    -------------       -------------
<S>                                                 <C>                 <C>
Net Loss                                            $2,955,679          $2,642,296
Basis for computation of primary earnings
per common and common equivalent share:
Weighted average number of shares outstanding
during period                                        1,608,412           1,031,527
Weighted average (incremental) common share
equivalent after considering the effects of
options and warrants issued during the years
ended June 30, 1997 and 1996 as required by
Securities and Exchange Commission Staff 
 Accounting Bulletin No. 83                              - 0 -             172,695
                                                    ----------          ----------
Total weighted average number of shares              1,608,412           1,204,222
                                                    ==========          ==========

Loss per share                                         $(1.84)             $(2.19)
                                                    ==========          ==========
</TABLE>

                                      35
§ 109-38.301-1.51 Emergency use. ( a ) Procedures for authorization of designated contractor use of Government motor vehicles in emergencies, including unscheduled overtime situations at remote sites where prior approval is not possible, shall be included in a contractor's approved property management procedures. The procedures shall include examples of emergency situations warranting such use. Records detailing instances of emergency use shall be maintained and review of all such emergency or overtime use must be certified through established audit procedures on at least an annual basis by the OPMO.
( b ) In limiting the use of Government motor vehicles to official purposes, it is not intended to preclude their use in emergencies threatening loss of life or property. Such use shall be documented and the documentation retained for three years.
# Comments on: 20-2277: BROOKLYN BREWERY CORPORATION v. BROOKLYN BREW SHOP, LLC [ERRATA], Nonprecedential
#### § 51-9.303 Access procedures.