alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A2 16 5 . SHANNON TERRY et a l . v . BRI AN STEPHENS.

Th i s cas e b e g a n as a d i s p o s ses s o ry p ro ceed in g i n m ag i s t rat e co u rt

. Aft er an ad v ers e ru l i n g , t en an ts Sh an n o n an d J an n i e Terry ap p eal ed t o t h e s up eri o r co u rt

. On
J u n e 1
, 2 0 1 5
, t he su p eri or co u rt en t ered an o rd er affi rm i n g t h e m a g i s trat e co u rt ju d g m en t

. On J u n e 2 4
, 20 1 5
, t h e Terry s fi l ed a n o t i ce o f d i rect ap p eal to t h i s Co u rt

. W e l ack ju ri sd ict i o n

.

“ [A] p p eal s fro m d eci s io ns o f t h e s up eri o r co urt s rev iewi n g d eci s i o n s o f l o wer

co u rt s b y cert i o rari o r d e n o v o p ro ceed i n g s s h al l be b y ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary
ap p eal .” Bu l l o ck v. S

an d
, 26 0 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 4
, 8 7 5 (5 81 SE2 d 3 3 3) (2 0 0 3 ) (p u n ct u at i o n

an d ci t at i o n o m it t ed ); s ee al s o OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 ). Becau se t h e Terry s d i d n ot
fo l l o w t he p ro p er p ro ced u re fo r req u es ti n g ap p el l a t e r e v i ew i n t h i s cas e, we l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h is ap p eal

. M o reo v er, ev en if t he Terry s h ad a r i g h t o f d i rect ap peal
, t h i s ap p eal i s

u n t i m el y

. Al t h o u g h a n o t i ce o f ap p eal g en eral l y m ay b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry

o f t h e ord er so u g h t t o b e ap peal ed
, ap peal s fro m ju d g m en t s i n d i s p os s es s o ry act i on s

m u st be fi l ed wi t h in 7 d ay s o f t he d at e t h e ju d g m en t was en t ered

. See OCGA § 4 4 -7

- 5 6 ; Ra d i o S

a nd y S p r in g s , In c. v. Al l en Ro a d

Jo in t Ven t u r e , 3 1 1 Ga. Ap p

. 3 3 4 , 3 3 5

- 3 3 6 (7 1 5 SE2 d 7 5 2 ) (2 0 1 1 ). Th e Terry s , h o wev er, fi l ed t hei r n ot i ce of ap p eal 2 3 day s aft er t h e s u p eri o r co u rt ’ s o rd er was en t ered

. Fo r t h es e reas on s , t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

. August 10, 2015C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/10/2015
Exhibit 23.5

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We, M/s S.S.Kothari Mehta &
Company, Chartered Accountants & Statutory Auditors of SPAR Solutions
Merchandising Private Limited hereby consent to the incorporation of our Audit
Report dated March 30, 2006, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders equity and cash flows for the year then ended December 31, 2005 and the
financial statement schedule for the year ended December 31, 2005, of Spar Group Inc. and
Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2006.

| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| | /s/ S. S.Kothari Mehta
& Co

New Delhi, India
March 29, 2007
EXHIBIT
31.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







I, Steve Bonenberger, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form
10-Q of Angel Acquisition Corp. (the "registrant");





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 quarterly report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 registrant's 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 quarterly
report is being prepared;





(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrant's 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 registrant's other certifying officers
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a) all significant deficiencies in the design
or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's
ability to


record, process, summarize, and report financial
data and have identified for the registrant's 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
registrant's internal


controls; and





6. The registrant's other certifying officers
and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not 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.






ANGEL ACQUISITION CORP.


Dated:
August 14,
2008                              /
s/ Steve Bonenberger




By: Steve Bonenberger, President, Chief
Executive Officer, and Director
No. 11-9506.

#### Buckman *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41509-41510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17124]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

Time and Date: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, July 11, 2000.

Place: NTSB Board Room, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC. 20594.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered:   
    6837A--
    Safety Recommendations related to Fires on board the passenger 
ships Universe Explorer on July 27, 1996 and Vistafjord on April 6, 
1997.
    7178A--Pipeline Accident Report: Natural Gas Pipeline Rupture and 
Subsequent Explosion in St. Cloud, Minnesota, December 11, 1998.
    7271--Railroad Accident Report: Derailment of Burlington Northern 
Santa Fe Freight Train S-CHILAC-1-31 and Hazardous Material Release 
near Crisfield, Kansas, September 2, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhonda Underwood (202) 314-6065.

[[Page 41510]]

Individuals requesting specific accommodation should contact Mrs. 
Barbara Bush at (202) 314-6220 by Friday, July 7, 2000.

    Dated: June 30, 2000.
Rhonda Underwood,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-17124 Filed 6-30-00; 3:26 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
EXHIBIT 31.1

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT

I, Angela Du, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Xin Net Corp.;

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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 registrant's 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's 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 registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's 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 registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
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 registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's 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 20, 2003

/s/ Angela Du
-----------------------
Angela Du, President, CEO
§ 101.1331 Treatment of incumbents. ( a ) Any MAS station licensed by the Commission prior to July 1, 1999 in the 928.0-928.85 MHz/952.0-952.85 MHz/956.25-956.45 MHz and 928.85-929.0 MHz/959.85-960.0 MHz bands, as well as assignments or transfers of such stations approved by the Commission and consummated as of January 19, 2000, shall be considered incumbent.
( b ) Incumbent operators in the 928.0-928.85 MHz/952.0-952.85 MHz/956.25-956.45 MHz bands are grandfathered as of January 19, 2000, and may continue to operate and expand their systems pursuant to the interference protection and co-channel spacing criteria contained in § 101.105. ( 1 ) MAS operators are prohibited from acquiring additional frequencies in the 928.0-928.85 MHz/952.0-952.85 MHz/956.25-956.45 MHz bands and the 932.25625-932.49375 MHz/941.25625-941.49375 MHz bands for the purpose of expanding private carrier service and from changing the use of their frequencies in any manner that is inconsistent with this part. Refer to § 101.147 for designated uses.
( 2 ) Incumbent operators in the 928.0-928.85 MHz/952.0-952.85 MHz/956.25-956.45 MHz bands will include incumbents as defined in § 101.1331(a), as well as, their transferees and/or assignees and the successors of the transferees and/or assignees and retain their grandfathered status, provided that the use of the MAS frequencies remains unchanged from that of the transferor and/or assignor of the license.
( c ) Incumbent operators in the 928.85-929.0/959.85-960.0 MHz bands are grandfathered as of January 19, 2000, and may expand their systems provided that the signal level of the additional transmitter(s) does not increase the composite contour that occurs at a 40.2 kilometer (25-mile) radius from the center of each master station transmitter site. Incumbent operators and geographic area licensees may negotiate alternative criteria.
( d ) The frequencies associated with incumbent authorizations in the 928/959 MHz bands that have cancelled automatically or otherwise been recovered by the Commission will automatically revert to the applicable EA licensee.
( e ) The frequencies associated with incumbent authorizations in the 928/952/956 MHz bands that have cancelled automatically will revert to the Commission.
[65 FR 17450, Apr. 3, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 35111, July 3, 2001]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2020-1637: Rudisill v. Wilkie - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5mWBsrw9dt\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-09-2020-2020-1637-rudisill-v-wilkie-audio-uploaded\/\">2020-1637: Rudisill v. Wilkie<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-09-2020-2020-1637-rudisill-v-wilkie-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=5mWBsrw9dt\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2020-1637: Rudisill v. Wilkie” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"5mWBsrw9dt\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Rudisill v. Wilkie (mp3) Appeal Number: 2020-1637 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
#### § 302-10.203 What are my allowances when a mobile home is transported partly by commercial carrier and partly by POV?

The allowances in §§ 302-10.200 through 302-10.202 apply to the respective portions of transportation by commercial carrier and POV when a mobile home is transported by both.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"21-2221: MOGHADAM v. DVA [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"WS0zfmeJat\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-09-2022-21-2221-moghadam-v-dva-opinion-21-2221-opinion-11-9-2022_2030927\/\">21-2221: MOGHADAM v. DVA [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-09-2022-21-2221-moghadam-v-dva-opinion-21-2221-opinion-11-9-2022_2030927\/embed\/#?secret=WS0zfmeJat\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-2221: MOGHADAM v. DVA [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"WS0zfmeJat\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: MOGHADAM v. DVA [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-2221 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
246P15

#### Lisa Green-Hayes v. Handcrafted Homes, LLC

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA14-904)

Denied
August 24, 2016

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 24th day of August, 2016.

10-16-00213-CV	IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF VINCENT WILLIAMS AND DEBORAH L. WILLIAMS - ON APPEAL FROM THE 52ND DISTRICT COURT OF CORYELL COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. CDN-14-42552 – DISMISSED - Memorandum Opinion by Justice Davis:

“This cause came on to be considered and because appellant failed to file a docketing statement within the time ordered by this Court and as prescribed by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed; it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the appeal be, and hereby is, dismissed.  It is further ordered that appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
# Comments on: 2017-2169: Vedanti Licensing Limited v. Google LLC
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 97-10313

Summary Calendar

___________________________

PERTECH COMPANY, JERRY L. PERRY, PERITECH, INC., DEBRON INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

VIDEOJET SYSTEM INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:96-CV-538-Y)

 ___________________________________________________

December 11, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Appellants raise three issues in this appeal. Appellants

first contend that despite the fact that they had two and one-half

years during which to conduct discovery, the district court abused

its discretion in declining to reopen discovery. The district

court had the discretion to decide that the Appellants had ample

opportunity to make discovery, and it did not abuse its discretion

in declining to extend discovery under the circumstances presented

in this case.
2

The Appellants next contend that the district court abused its

discretion in excluding a number of their witnesses. The

Appellants submitted the names of 19 additional witnesses only six

weeks before trial. The Appellants had previously failed to

include the names of these witnesses in response to the Appellee's

earlier interrogatories, and no valid reason was offered for this

failure. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

excluding these witnesses. 

Finally, three of the Appellants argue that the district court

abused its discretion in declining to enter a default judgment

against Videojet. The Appellants’ counterclaim was ambiguous with

respect to whether it was brought by one or by all four of the

Appellants. As a result of that ambiguity, Videojet answered the

counterclaim only with respect to one of the Appellants. The

district court considered the Appellee's failure to answer the

counterclaim as to three of the Appellants as justified, and

declined to enter a default judgment in favor of those three

Appellants. This is not an abuse of the district court’s

considerable discretion. 

There is no merit to any of the Appellants’ arguments, and

therefore we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

AFFIRMED.