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:

A19D0287. ALFONZA MCKEEVER v. THE STATE. 

The trial court ordered Alfonza McKeever, who is proceeding pro se, to

cooperate with an evaluation by the Department of Behavioral Health and

Developmental Disabilities(“DBHDD”), and also found himcompetent to stand trial

on criminal charges.McKeever then filed a notice of a neuropsychological evaluation

of himself. The trial court ruled that, to the degree that the notice of the

neuropsychological evaluation was intended to indicate McKeever’s competence or

criminal responsibility, it was excluded because McKeever had not complied with its

prior order to cooperate with DBHDD. McKeever also filed a “request for extension

of time to file, plaintiff delay of documents and [transcripts,] audio recording, grant

deposition from all co-defenders and accusers,” which the trial court denied, noting

that the trial was set for January 14, 2019. McKeever thereafter filed this application

for discretionary review. Although McKeever’s application and supplemental

application are somewhat unclear, it appears that he is challenging the trial court’s

denial of his request for an extension of time and the exclusion of his notice of the

evaluation.

1

 We, however, lack jurisdiction.

It is clear from the trial court’s orders that the case remains pending below.

Therefore, the ordersthat McKeever wishesto appeal are interlocutory in nature, and

1

Indeed, these orders are the only recent trial court orders in the application

materials. See Court of AppealsRule 31 (c) (providing that discretionary applications

must contain a copy of the trial court’s order or judgment from which the appeal is

sought). 

February 05, 2019
he was required to follow the interlocutory application procedure set forth in OCGA

§ 5-6-34 (b), which includes obtaining a certificate of immediate review fromthe trial

court. Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga.

Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991).

McKeever’sfailure to comply with the interlocutory review procedure deprives us of

jurisdiction over this application, which 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.

02/05/2019
No. 11-10084.

#### Mark *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Celadon Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Paul A.
Will, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Assistant Treasurer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), that to 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 result of operations of
         the Company.

                                          /s/ Paul A. Will
                                          ----------------
                                            Paul A. Will
                                       Chief Financial Officer,
                                  Secretary and Assistant Treasurer

September 19, 2003
No. 11-6087.

#### Underwood *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5648.

#### Maxwell *v.*White, Warden.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 73.3520 Multiple applications.

Where there is one application for new or additional facilities pending, no other application for new or additional facilities for a station of the same class to serve the same community may be filed by the same applicant, or successor or assignee, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of the original parties in interest. Multiple applications may not be filed simultaneously.

[44 FR 38488, July 2, 1979]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 160 (Friday, August 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 47821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7022]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussion could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; Drug Testing Facility.
    Date: September 7, 2006.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Room 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Hameed Khan, Scientific Review Administrator, 
Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6902, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#076c6f66696f476a666e6b29696e6f29606871"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0cbc8c1cec8e0cdc1c9cc8ecec9c88ec7cfd6">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 14, 2006.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-7022 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 73.1520 Operation for tests and maintenance. ( a ) Broadcast stations may be operated for tests and maintenance of their transmitting systems on their assigned frequencies using their licensed operating power and antennas during their authorized hours of operation without specific authorization from the FCC.
( b ) Licensees of AM stations may operate for tests and maintenance during the hours from 12 midnight local time to local sunrise, if no interference is caused to other stations maintaining a regular operating schedule within such period. No AM station licensed for “daytime” or “specified hours” of operation may broadcast any regular or scheduled programs during this period of test and maintenance operation.
( c ) Licensees of AM stations may obtain special antenna test authorizations, and operate under the provisions described in § 73.157, to operate with nighttime facilities during daytime hours in conducting directional antenna field strength and antenna proof of performance measurements.
[43 FR 32783, July 28, 1978, as amended at 45 FR 6401, Jan. 28, 1980]
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4751 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4751

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
  To reauthorize appropriations for the weatherization program under 
       section 422 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That section 422 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 
U.S.C. 6872) is amended to read as follows:

                   ``authorization of appropriations

    ``Sec. 422. For the purposes of carrying out the weatherization 
program under this part, there are authorized to be appropriated for 
fiscal years 1995 and 1996 such sums as may be necessary.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 8, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.




103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4751

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To reauthorize appropriations for the weatherization program under 
       section 422 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act.`
#### § 69.408 All other customer services expenses in Account 6620.

All other customer services expenses shall be apportioned among the Interexchange category, the billing and collection category and all access elements based on the combined expenses in §§ 69.404 through 69.407.

[52 FR 37313, Oct. 6, 1987, as amended at 54 FR 3456, Jan. 24, 1989]
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 460

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a minimum tax

on certain foreign or foreign controlled corporations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 1993

Mr. HUNTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose

a minimum tax on certain foreign or foreign controlled

corporations.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness and Equity

5 Tax Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. MINIMUM TAX ON FOREIGN AND FOREIGN-OWNED

7 CORPORATIONS.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the

9 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to determination
2

•HR 460 IH

1 of tax liability) is amended by adding at the end thereof

2 the following new part:

3 ‘‘PART VIII—MINIMUM TAX ON CERTAIN FOREIGN

4 AND FOREIGN-OWNED CORPORATIONS

‘‘Sec. 59B. Minimum tax on certain foreign and foreign-owned

corporations.

5 ‘‘SEC. 59B. MINIMUM TAX ON CERTAIN FOREIGN AND FOR6 EIGN-OWNED CORPORATIONS.

7 ‘‘(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX.—In the case of a corpora8 tion to which this section applies, there is hereby imposed

9 (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a

10 tax equal to the excess (if any) of—

11 ‘‘(1) 34 percent of the product of—

12 ‘‘(A) 9 percent, and

13 ‘‘(B) the gross receipts of the taxpayer

14 from the sale or leasing of property manufac15 tured by the taxpayer or by any foreign person

16 that is a related party of the taxpayer, over

17 ‘‘(2) the aggregate tax imposed under sections

18 11, 55, and 1201 for such year.

19 ‘‘(b) TAXPAYERS TO WHICH SECTION APPLIES.—

20 This section shall apply to a corporation for the taxable

21 year if such corporation is—

22 ‘‘(1) a domestic corporation which is 25-percent

23 foreign-owned, or
3

•HR 460 IH

1 ‘‘(2) a foreign corporation engaged in a trade or

2 business within the United States.

3 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the

4 term ‘25-percent foreign-owned’, ‘foreign person’, and ‘re5 lated party’ have the respective meanings given such terms

6 by section 6038A(c).’’

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of parts for

8 such subchapter A is amended by adding at the end there9 of the following new item:

‘‘Part VIII. Minimum tax on certain foreign and foreign-owned

corporations.’’

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

12 December 31, 1992.

Æ
[No. 2962.]

#### J. T. Mulkey and Ike Russell *v.*The State.

“Local Option” Law—Repeal.—Since the appeal in this case was perfected, the voters of the precinct in which, at the time of the trial, the “ Local Option” law was in force, have determined against prohibition, and such fact has been proclaimed in the manner prescribed by law. Under such circumstances the judgment must be reversed and the prosecution dismissed, because there is no longer any law in force by authority of which the judgment can be enforced.

Appeal from the County Court of Collin. Tried below before the Hon. T. C. Goodner, County Judge.

The conviction was for the violation of the “Local Option” law. A fine of twenty-five dollars was assessed as punishment.

*Garnett & Muse,*for the appellants.

*J. H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

Appellants appeal from a conviction obtained against them in May, 1883, upon a charge of violating the “Local Option” law in precinct number four, of Collin county.

Since the conviction, in September, 1883, the voters of that precinct, at an election held in accordance with law, determined against prohibition in said precinct, and in accordance with such determination the commissioners’ court of said county declared in due form that the provisions of the Local Option law were no longer in force in said precinct.

Such being the present condition of this case, the judgment must be reversed and the prosecution dismissed, because there is no longer any law in force by authority of which the judgment could be enforced. *(Freeze and Jones*v. *The State,*14 Texas Ct. App., 31; *Prather*v. *The State,*Id., 453.)

*Reversed and dismissed.*

Opinion delivered April 26, 1884.
#### § 61.73 Duplication of rates or regulations.

A carrier concurring in schedules of another carrier must not publish conflicting or duplicative rates or regulations.
###### Editorial Note on [Part 74](/current/title-47/part-74?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at [64 FR 4055](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/64-FR-4055), Jan. 27, 1999.

#### § 74.636 Power limitations.

(a) On any authorized frequency, transmitter peak output power and the average power delivered to an antenna in this service must be the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communications desired and shall not exceed the values listed in the following table. Application of this principle includes, but is not to be limited to, requiring a licensee who replaces one or more of its antennas with larger antennas to reduce its antenna input power by an amount appropriate to compensate for the increased primary lobe gain of the replacement antenna(s). In no event shall the average equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP), as referenced to an isotropic radiator, exceed the values specified in the following table. In cases of harmful interference, the Commission may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, order a change in the effective radiated power of this station. The table follows:

| Frequency band (MHz) | Maximum allowable transmitter power | Maximum allowable EIRP2 | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Mobile (W) | Fixed (dBW) | Mobile (dBW) |
| 2,025 to 2,110 | 12.0 | + 45 | + 35 |
| 2,450 to 2,483.5 | 12.0 | + 45 | + 35 |
| 6,425 to 6,525 | 12.0 | | + 35 |
| 6,875 to 7,125 | 12.0 | + 55 | + 35 |
| 12,700 to 13,250 | 1.5 | + 55 | + 45 |
| 17,700 to 18,600 | | + 55 | |
| 18,600 to 18,8001 | | + 35 | |
| 18,800 to 19,700 | | + 55 | |
| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 The power delivered to the antenna is limited to −3 dBW. | | | |
| 2 Stations licensed based on an application filed before April 16, 2003, for EIRP values exceeding those specified above, may continue to operate indefinitely in accordance with the terms of their current authorizations, subject to periodic renewal. | | | |

(b) The EIRP of transmitters that use Automatic Transmitter Power Control (ATPC) shall not exceed the EIRP specified on the station authorization. The EIRP of non-ATPC transmitters shall be maintained as near as practicable to the EIRP specified on the station authorization.

[[68 FR 12769](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/68-FR-12769), Mar. 17, 2003]
**** **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 Interactive Intelligence, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Dr.
      Donald E. Brown, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
      of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      ss.
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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/
      Donald E. Brown, M.D


Donald
      E.
      Brown, M.D.


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


November
      14, 2006
308A15

#### State v. Zachary David Thomsen

1. Def’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Dissent (COA14-1235)

1.-

2. Def’s PDR as to Additional Issues

2. Denied
§ 101.1325 Construction requirements. ( a ) Incumbent and site-based licenses are subject to the construction requirements set forth in § 101.63.
( b ) Each MAS EA licensee must provide service to at least one-fifth of the population in its service area or “substantial service” within five years of the license grant. In addition, MAS EA licensees must make a showing of continued “substantial service” within ten years of the license grant. Licensees must file maps and other supporting documents showing compliance with the respective construction requirements within the appropriate five- and ten-year benchmarks of the date of their initial licenses.
( c ) Failure by any licensee to meet these requirements will result in forfeiture or non-renewal of the initial license, and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.
[65 FR 17450, Apr. 3, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 4961, Jan. 31, 2003]
[No. 2896.]

#### G. B. Pickett et al. *v.*The State.

*1.*Scire Facias—Bail Bond.—That a bail bond binds the obligors for the appearance of the principal from day to day and term to term of the court; until discharged, is not a condition more onerous than that imposed by law.

2. Same.—Surety.—The suretyship of a married woman invalidates a bail bond only as to her, not as to the principal and other sureties.

*Z.*Same.—Judgment Kisi is fatally defective if it fails to state that the same will be made final unless good cause be shown at the next term of the court why the defendant did not appear.

Error from the District Court of Jack. Tried below before the Hon. A. J. Hood.

The writ of error in this case is prosecuted from judgment final upon the forfeiture of the bond of Thomas Pickett, bailed in the sum of one thousand dollars on the charge of cattle theft,

*Sparkman & Crane,*for the plaintiffs in error..

J. *H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

We think the bail bond is a valid one. That it binds the obligors for the appearance of the principal from day to day and term to term of the court, until he is discharged by the court, does not make it more onerous than the law makes it. Such would be the legal effect of the bond, even if it was not *649so expressed therein. (Code Crim. Proc., Art. 290). This bond is not conditioned like the one in the case of *Turner*v. *The State,*14 Texas Court of Appeals, ,168, cited by counsel for appellants. In that case the bond contained a condition which was more onerous than the law required, or than was embraced within the legal effect of a bail bond. That a married woman was a surety upon the bond does not invalidate it as to the other obligors. It would be invalid as to her (Code Crim. Proc., Art. 291), but binding upon the principal and other sureties. (Code Crim. Proc., Art. 452). Rone of the objections made to the bail bond in this case are, in our opinion, maintainable.

There is a fatal defect in the judgment *nisi.*It does not state that the same will be made final unless good cause be shown at the next term of the court why the defendant did not appear. (Code Crim. Proc., Art. 441; *Collins*v. *The State,*12 Texas Ct. App., 356; *Thomas*v. *The State,*Id., 416, 417; *Barton*v. *The State,*Id., 613).

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Beversed and*remanded,

Opinion delivered June 27, 1884.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND THE
CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             739
<SECURITIES>                                    14,061
<RECEIVABLES>                                      217
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,536
<PP&E>                                             190
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,920
<BONDS>                                         14,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           19,781
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,166
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,631
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,823
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,465
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,532)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,535)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    100
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,435)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.79)


</TABLE>