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:

A16I0083. MICHAEL DELEON v. JACQUELINE DELEON.

Michael and Jacqueline DeLeon divorced in 2014. Jacqueline, who hadmoved

to Florida, was given primary physical custody of the parties’ minor child. In July

2015, Michael – who still resides in Georgia – filed an ex-parte petition for

immediate custody of the child based on allegations that Jacqueline’s boyfriend had

abused him. The trial court granted the petition and issued an emergency order

granting primary physical custody to Michael. The mother objected that the trial

court lacked jurisdiction because Florida is now the child’s home state. The court

entered a temporary order finding that it had emergency jurisdiction and ruling that

the emergency order “shall remain in full force and effect until further order of the

Court.” Michael then filed this application for interlocutory appeal.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), “[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody

cases awarding, refusing to change, or modifying child custody” are directly

appealable, including interlocutory custody orders. See Lacy v. Lacy, 320 Ga. App.

739, 742 (3) (740 SE2d 695) (2013). Because the order to be appealed extends a

prior emergency custody order, it falls within the scope of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11)

and is directly appealable.

“This Court will grant a timely application for interlocutory review if the order

complained of is subject to direct appeal and the applicants have not otherwise filed

a notice of appeal.” Spivey v. Hembree, 268 Ga. App. 485, 486, n. 1 (602 SE2d 246)

(2004).Accordingly,Michael DeLeon’s application for interlocutory appeal is hereby

GRANTED. He shall have ten days from the date of this order to file a notice of

appeal if he has not already done so. The clerk of the superior court is directed to

December 17, 2015
include a copy of this order in the appeal record transmitted to this Court.

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.

12/17/2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7547

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC ARTHUR WALTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:94-cr-00021-FPS-JES-1; 5:15-cv00052-FPS)

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Arthur Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Arthur Walton seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and

unauthorized.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

 * Because Walton’s motion was an unauthorized, successive 

§ 2255 motion, the district court lacked jurisdiction to 

consider the merits of his claims. United States v. Winestock, 

340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003).
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We have
issued our report dated March 8, 2010, accompanying the audited consolidated financial
statements incorporated by reference in the Annual Report of United Bancorp,
Inc. on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.  We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statements of United Bancorp, Inc. on Forms S-8 (file No. 33-123036
effective February 28, 2005) and S-3 (file No. 333-136708 effective August 17,
2006).





/s/ BKD,
LLP





BKD,
LLP





Cincinnati,
Ohio


March 23,
2010
#### Charley Poteet v. The State.

No. 2071.

Decided November 29, 1899.

Occupation Tax—Cotton Buyer—Constitutional Law.

Subdivision 38 of the Act of the Called Session Twenty-fifth- Legislature, page ' 51, imposing an occupation tax upon cotton buyers, is unconstitutional in that it levies a tax which is not uniform, since merchants are expressly exempted from such tax.

Appeal from the County Court of Delta. Tried below before Hon. W. S. Banister, County Judge.

*269Appeal from a conviction for pursuing the occupation of a cotton buyer without having paid the tax and obtained a license therefor *-r*penalty, a fine of $25.

No statement necessary.

*W. F. Moore*and *Burdett & Connor,*for appellant.

*RoVt A. John,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of pursuing the occupation of cotton buyer without obtaining a license for that purpose.

This prosecution is based upon the refusal of appellant to comply with subdivision 38, page 54, Acts First Called Session Twenty-fifth Legislature, imposing an occupation tax upon cotton buyers. By the terms of that statute, every person who buys cotton, wool, or hides, shall pay a tax of $10 to the State; provided, *“a*merchant who pays an occupation tax as herein prescribed shall not be considered a cotton buyer, or buyer of wool or hides.” Under subdivision 1 of said act, an occupation tax is levied upon merchants in accordance with the amount of annual purchases, and the tax ranges from $3 to $300. It is contended that said subdivision 38 is unconstitutional, because it makes an exemption of a party who pays an occupation tax as merchant. We believe, under the provisions of sections 1, 2, article 8, of the Constitution, this position is well taken. This question has been discussed fully in Ex Parte Jones, 38 Texas Criminal Reports, 482, and Ex Parte Overstreet, 39 Texas Criminal Reports, 474. Under the provisions of our Constitution, the tax must be equal and *uniform;*and the Legislature has no authority to exempt a merchant or any other class from the payment of this tax, when it is imposed upon all others. It is no answer that the party pays a tax as a merchant. The two callings are different and distinct. If the Legislature has the authority to exempt a merchant from the payment of the tax, so it would any other class of citizens, and thus impose a burden upon one class from which the others are exempt, and for the same calling or pursuit. The judgment is accordingly reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

*Reversed and dismissed.*
From: Sarah Skilling

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:36:47 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Sarah Skilling

805 Marion St #108

Seattle, wa 98104
From: James Addison

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 6:12:22 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

James Addison

355 Riverbend Pkwy

Apt. 46

Athens, GA 30605
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1186

To provide a budgetary mechanism to ensure that funds will be available

to satisfy the Federal Government’s responsibilities with respect to negotiated settlements of disputes related to Indian water rights claims and

Indian land claims.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 17, 2001

Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr.

BAUCUS, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. JOHNSON, and Mr. KYL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred jointly

pursusant to the order of August 4, 1977, to the Committees on the

Budget and Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one committee reports, the other committee have thirty days to report or be discharged

A BILL

To provide a budgetary mechanism to ensure that funds

will be available to satisfy the Federal Government’s

responsibilities with respect to negotiated settlements of

disputes related to Indian water rights claims and Indian

land claims.

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 ‘‘Fiscal Integrity of In5 dian Settlements Protection Act of 2001’’.
2

•S 1186 RIS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO BUDGET LAWS.

2 (a) BALANCED BUDGET ACT.—Section 251(b)(2) of

3 the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act

4 of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)) is amended by adding the

5 following:

6 ‘‘(H) ALLOWANCE FOR SETTLEMENTS OF

7 INDIAN WATER RIGHTS AND LAND DISPUTES.—

8 ‘‘(i) ADJUSTMENT.—If an appropria9 tion bill or joint resolution is enacted for

10 fiscal year 2002 that includes an appro11 priation authorized previously by a law ap12 proving a negotiated settlement of disputes

13 related to Indian water rights claims or In14 dian land claims for that fiscal year, the

15 adjustment shall be the amount of budget

16 authority in that measure and the outlays

17 flowing in all fiscal years from that budget

18 authority.

19 ‘‘(ii) LIMITATION.—The total adjust20 ment made pursuant to this subparagraph

21 shall not exceed $200,000,000 in budget

22 authority.’’.

23 (b) CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.—Section 314(b)

24 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.

25 645(b)) is amended—
3

•S 1186 RIS

1 (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘or’’ after the

2 semicolon;

3 (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and

4 inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

5 (3) by adding at the end the following:

6 ‘‘(7) an amount provided, not to exceed

7 $200,000,000, for fiscal year 2002 for payments au8 thorized previously by a law approving a negotiated

9 settlement of disputes related to Indian water rights

10 claims or Indian land claims as long as the adjust11 ment does not, when taken together with all other

12 previously enacted legislation (except for any legisla13 tion enacted pursuant to section 211 of H. Con.

14 Res. 83, 107th Cong., 1st Sess.), reduce the on15 budget surplus below the level of the Medicare Hos16 pital Insurance Trust Fund surplus in any fiscal

17 year covered by the most recently adopted concur18 rent resolution on the budget.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>   1

                                  UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                                    FORM 10-Q/A


[X]      QUARTERLY Report Pursuant To Section 13 Or 15(d) Of The Securities
         Exchange Act Of 1934

         For the quarterly period ended June 30, 1999

                                       OR

[ ]      Transition Report Pursuant To Section 13 Or 15(d) Of The Securities
         EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


                         Commission file number 0-22725


                            CRESCENT OPERATING, INC.
          ------------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


                  Delaware                            75-2701931
                  --------                            ----------
       (State or other jurisdiction of     (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
       incorporation or organization)

       306 West 7th Street, Suite 1000
              Fort Worth, Texas                           76102
       -------------------------------                    -----
  (Address of principal executive offices)              (Zip Code)

        Registrant's telephone number, including area code (817) 339-2200


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was
required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.

                                 YES [X] NO [ ]


The Company hereby amends its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1999, by
substituting the following phrase for the final phrase on the facing page of
such previously filed Form 10-Q:

Number of shares of Common Stock, $.01 par value, outstanding as of August 16,
1999: 11,413,263
<PAGE>   2
                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized, on the 30th day of August, 1999.

                                  CRESCENT OPERATING, INC.
                                  (Registrant)


                                  By   /s/ JOHN C. GOFF
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    John C. Goff, President and Chief
                                    Executive Officer and Vice-Chairman
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)


                                  By   /s/ RICHARD P. KNIGHT
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Richard P. Knight, Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Comments on the Interagency Science Consultation Draft IRIS Assessment of RDX (dated September 2014)

Date: October 28, 2014

_

____________________________________________________________________________________

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of RDX. The assessment is clearly written and the analyses appear to be scientifically sound.

I do not have any substantive comments on the content of this assessment. The derivation of the overall oral reference dose (RfD) based on nervous system effects (specifically convulsions) seems appropriate. Likewise, the derivation of the oral slope factor seems appropriate. I also agree with EPA’s conclusion that the database for RDX provides “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” by all routes of

exposure.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review this assessment. I look forward to the inte ragency discussion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FORM
10-KSB AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>   0000021828
<NAME>   COLONIAL COMMERCIAL CORP.

 <S>                                                             <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                                                   YEAR
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               DEC-31-1997
 <PERIOD-END>                                                    DEC-31-1997
 <CASH>                                                            1,240,986
 <SECURITIES>                                                            0
 <RECEIVABLES>                                                     8,321,041
 <ALLOWANCES>                                                        416,688
 <INVENTORY>                                                         823,267
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 14,162,902
 <PP&E>                                                              531,250
 <DEPRECIATION>                                                      186,549
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   15,160,457
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             5,373,846
 <BONDS>                                                                  0
 <COMMON>                                                             71,487
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
 <PREFERRED>                                                          83,377
 <OTHER-SE>                                                        8,794,204
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     15,160,457
 <SALES>                                                          22,642,783
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 22,642,783
 <CGS>                                                            16,804,980
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    16,804,980
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                         0
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    270,000
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  287,381
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     516,656
 <INCOME-TAX>                                                       (155,700)
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 672,356
 <DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
 <CHANGES>                                                                0
 <NET-INCOME>                                                        672,356
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                                                           .47
 <EPS-DILUTED>                                                           .21


</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 88 E/0479)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3517/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject:   Fair trade

Would it be considered as discriminatory under EU public procurement regulations to stipulate that Fair Trade products must be used in public tenders for catering services?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Once a contracting authority has decided on the subject matter of the procurement contract intended for its catering services (what generic type of products to buy), it is free to define the technical specifications of those products. The requirements must, however, relate to the characteristics or performance of the products (e.g., glasses or plates made out of recycled material) or the production of the products (e.g. organically grown ones).

A contracting authority wishing to procure Fair-trade products (meaning products certified using standards set by the private Fair-trade Labelling Organisations International) for catering services must define the technical specifications of the products in relation to the social or environmental performances underlying the label. While the contracting authority may indicate that products having that label are deemed to comply with the technical specifications, it must also allow economic operators to prove compliance with the technical specifications by other means of proof. Only on a case by case basis it can be determined which of Fair-trade's diverse standards (or parts thereof) describe the characteristics or performance of the product to be purchased.

Contracting authorities procuring goods must respect the fundamental Community principles, including the principle of equal treatment, of which non-discrimination is a specific expression. It follows from established case law of the European Court of Justice that not only acts of de jure discrimination are prohibited under the EC Treaty, but also acts which hinder non-nationals more than nationals (de facto discrimination).

Due to the wide range of standards comprised by the Fair-trade label and the wide range of products available in the catering business, it is only possible on a case by case basis, taking into account all circumstances surrounding the purchase, to determine whether a contracting authority infringes upon the principle of non-discrimination.

----
From: Katie Gartner

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:47:22 AM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This decision enables women to have control over their bodies. It is each individual woman's decision

whether or not she would like to become pregnant, so ensuring that the full cost of birth control will be

covered by insurance companies is a step in the right direction for the reproductive rights movement.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Katie Gartner

4 Hulst Road

Amherst, MA 01002
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated April 19, 2016, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-209471) of Smart Trust 239,
comprising Smart Trust, New York Municipal Portfolio of Closed-End Funds Trust, Series 12.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


April 19, 2016