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:

A18D0107. DARREN D. RIGGS v. THE STATE.

In 2010, Darren D. Riggs entered a non-negotiated plea to multiple offenses,

including child molestation and making a false statement. He was sentenced to 50

years, with 30 years to serve in prison. The trial court denied Riggs’s motion to

withdraw his plea, and we affirmed on appeal. See Riggs v. State, 319 Ga. App. 189

(733 SE2d 832) (2012). On November 15, 2013, Riggs filed a “Motion to Reduce

Sentence,” which the trial court denied. On appeal, we vacated in part Riggs’s

sentence, concluding that his sentence violated OCGA § 17-10-6.2 (b) because the

trial court failed to sentence him to splitsentences for his sexual offense convictions.

See Riggs v. State, A15A2338 (decided March 4, 2016). We remanded to the trial

court for resentencing, and the case remains pending below.

In May 2017, Riggs filed a motion to recuse the trial judge in his criminal

proceedings. He also filed a “Motion in Limine,” urging the trial court to issue a

certificate of immediate review on his motion to recuse. Following the trial court’s

denial of both motions, Riggs filed the instant application for discretionary review.

We, however, lack jurisdiction.

The orders that Riggs seeks to appeal are interlocutory. See OCGA § 5-6-34

(a) (1) (providing for a direct appeal from a “final judgment[ ], that is to say, where

the case is no longer pending in the court below”); Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App.

829, 830 (747 SE2d 21) (2013) (An order denying a motion to recuse is

interlocutory). At the time Riggs filed his instant application, he was still awaiting

resentencing in the trial court. Therefore, in order to obtain appellate review of his

recusal request and his “Motion in Limine,” Riggs was required to follow the

October 04, 2017
interlocutory appeal procedure set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey,

266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996) (where contested order is interlocutory,

discretionary appeal statute does not excuse failure to comply with OCGA § 5-6-34

(b)). Here, the trial court has not issued a certificate of immediate review. Riggs’s

failure to follow the proper appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction to consider

his application. See Warringer v. Warringer, 204 Ga. App. 86, 86 (418 SE2d 446)

(1992). Accordingly, his application 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.

10/04/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information
extracted from the
company's  1996 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by
reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>
<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                   27,000
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      5,749,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                     74,400
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          755,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                  244,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,364,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  0<F1>
<BONDS>
2,603,500<F2>
<COMMON>                                          345,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                         350,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        6,364,200
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    678,000
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     203,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    1,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   41,300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   315,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     115,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                        40,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  75,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     75,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The Company is a captive finance subsidiary which does
not have a classified
balance sheet.
<F2>Included current and noncurrent maturities of long-term
debt.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20944]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: Proposal Review Panel for Materials 
Research (DMR)--Site Visit review of a Materials Innovation Platform on 
Automating the Synthesis of Rationally Designed Glycomaterials 
(GlycoMIP) (#1203)
    Date and Time: October 26, 2023; 8 a.m.-6 p.m.; October 27, 2023; 8 
a.m.-4 p.m.
    Place: Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia, 
315 Riverbend Road, Athens, GA 30602.
    Type of Meeting: Part open.
    Contact Person: Z. Charles Ying, Program Director, Division of 
Materials Research, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower 
Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone (703) 292-8428.
    Purpose of Meeting: Site visit to provide advice and 
recommendations concerning further support of the GlycoMIP at Virginia 
Polytechnic Institute and State University and the University of 
Georgia.

Agenda

Thursday, October 26, 2023

8 a.m.-8:30 a.m. Executive Session (Closed)
8:30 a.m.-11:45 a.m. Review of GlycoMIP (Open)
11:45 a.m.-2 p.m. Executive Session (Closed)
2 p.m.-3:45 p.m. Review of GlycoMIP (Open)
3:45 p.m.-6 p.m. Executive Session (Closed)

Friday, October 27, 2023

8 a.m.-4 p.m. Executive Session (Closed)

    Reason for Closing: Topics to be discussed and evaluated during 
closed portions of the site review will include information of a 
proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; 
and information on personnel. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: September 21, 2023.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-20944 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### Fifty-Five Corporation, Respondent, v 10 West 66th Street Corporation, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 106]

—Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered January 26, 1995 and February 21, 1995, respectively, which insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action for continuing trespass, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s cause of action for continuing trespass was properly sustained, notwithstanding that the encroaching excavation and backfill on plaintiffs property supporting the retaining wall on defendant’s property was done with plaintiffs permission *(see, Wheelock v Noonan,*108 NY 179, 183), and that the work was intended to be permanent *(see, 509 Sixth Ave. Corp. v New York City Tr. Auth.,*15 NY2d 48, 52), there being issues of fact whether the work violated applicable regulations *(see, Cranesville Block Co. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*175 AD2d 444, 446), or was completed in a manner so negligent as to create a " 'substantial certainty’ ” of harm *(Phillips v Sun Oil Co.,*307 NY 328, 331). Defendant’s claim of a prescription easement is improperly raised for the first time on appeal *(see, Recovery Consultants v Shih-Hsieh,*141 AD2d 272, 276), and in any event appears to be without merit in the absence of proof that defendant’s use of plaintiffs property was hostile *(see, Boumis v Caetano,*140 AD2d 401, 402). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.
From: sbrevorP3_7@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:15:43 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

On behalf of the innocent unborn this bill intends to put to death in their mothers womb, I am writing

today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive mandate that all

"contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to

patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for any organizations

that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I strongly oppose

the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and devices that I

oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

God's conviction and grace upon you,

Doug

Psalm 106:38

"They poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and ? daughters, whom they sacrificed to the

idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with ? blood."

Sincerely,

Doug Huntington

Grand Rapids, MI 49534
From: anngberger_themom@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:36:07 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

After reminding you that government is in office to represent and respect the rights of all Americans,

not just the ones with which you agree,

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

I would like to remind you that all Americans should be represented by these government decisions, and

that includes respecting the rights of those on the "other" side.

Sincerely,

Ann Berger

Howell, MI 48843
February 4, 2010

Meeting with Semiconductor Industry Association on February 4, 2010

Attendees : Anna Wood, EPA Tom Diamond, SIA Laura Mendocino, Freescale Reed Content, Global foundaries Mike McIntyre, Micron Stephen Harper, Intel Corporation Kevin Fay, Alcalde and Fay Julie Hatcher, Latham and Watkins Cynthia Johnson, Texas Instruments Jeff Davidson, Analog Devices Andrea Fava, Intel

Subject : SIA Comments on the Proposed GHG Tailoring Rule

Attachment – Briefing Slides
Exhibit 32.2



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 on Form 10-Q of
BJs Wholesale Club, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Frank D. Forward, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the undersigneds 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.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 17, 2005 |  | /S/ FRANK D. FORWARD   
|                    |  | Frank D. Forward       
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer
March 26, 1997

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
450 Fifth Street, N. W.
Judiciary Plaza
Washington, D. C. 20549

Re:  United Funds, Inc.
     Post-Effective Amendment No. 119

Dear Sir or Madam:

In connection with the filing of the above-referenced Post-Effective Amendment,
I hereby represent that the Amendment does not contain disclosures which would
render it ineligible to become effective pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485.

Yours truly,



Sharon K. Pappas
General Counsel

SKP:fr
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

*Name and Committee Code:*                     Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research (DMR)—Site Visit review of a Materials Innovation Platform on Automating the Synthesis of Rationally Designed Glycomaterials (GlycoMIP) (#1203)                

*Date and Time:*                     October 26, 2023; 8 a.m.-6 p.m.; October 27, 2023; 8 a.m.-4 p.m.                

*Place:*                     Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia, 315 Riverbend Road, Athens, GA 30602.                

*Type of Meeting:*                     Part open.                

*Contact Person:*                     Z. Charles Ying, Program Director, Division of Materials Research, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone (703) 292-8428.                

*Purpose of Meeting:*                     Site visit to provide advice and recommendations concerning further support of the GlycoMIP at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and the University of Georgia.                

## Agenda

### Thursday, October 26, 2023

8 a.m.-8:30 a.m. Executive Session (Closed)

8:30 a.m.-11:45 a.m. Review of GlycoMIP (Open)

11:45 a.m.-2 p.m. Executive Session (Closed)

2 p.m.-3:45 p.m. Review of GlycoMIP (Open)

3:45 p.m.-6 p.m. Executive Session (Closed)

### Friday, October 27, 2023 

8 a.m.-4 p.m. Executive Session (Closed)

*Reason for Closing:*                     Topics to be discussed and evaluated during closed portions of the site review will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; and information on personnel. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                

Dated: September 21, 2023.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2023-20944 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
From: lemanie@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:10:21 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Melanie Lundholm

Lenexa, KS 66215
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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 discussions 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 Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Large Scale T Cell Immune Epitope Discovery and Mechanisms of T Cell Protection (N01).                    

*Date:*                         October 25-26, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G54, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Hitendra S. Chand, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G54, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 627-3245,                         *hiten.chand@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 20, 2023.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-20868 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P