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:

A17A0269. TOMMY LEE BELL v. THE STATE.

In 1999, Tommy Lee Bell was convicted of murder and other crimes, and the

Supreme Court affirmed his convictions on appeal. Bell v. State, 278 Ga. 69 (597

SE2d 350) (2004). In 2016, Bell filed an extraordinary motion for new trial, which

the trial court denied. Bell now appeals directly to this Court. We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over

“[a]ll cases in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.” Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death can be

imposed for the crime of murder, jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court. See

OCGA § 16-5-1 (a), (e) (1); Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 572 (722 SE2d 765) (2012)

(Hunstein, C. J., concurring); see also State v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524, 524 (1) (322

SE2d 711) (1984) (directing this Court to transfer “all cases in which either a

sentence of death or of life imprisonment has been imposed upon conviction of

murder”). Accordingly, Bell’s appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme

Court for disposition.

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.

10/03/2016

October 03, 2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIALS CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           6,636
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                        45
<INVENTORY>                                      3,518
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,795
<PP&E>                                          12,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,026
<BONDS>                                             60
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           170
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,899
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,654
<SALES>                                         13,661
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,993
<CGS>                                            6,264
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 739
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    784
<INCOME-TAX>                                       313
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                471
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       471
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (the
Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |  |  |                                                     
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 26, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael I. Roth                                 
|                         |  |  |  | Michael I. Roth                                     
|                         |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer   
|                         |  | 
|Dated: February 26, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Frank Mergenthaler                              
|                         |  |  |  | Frank Mergenthaler                                  
|                         |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 23

- 00009

- CR No. 10

- 23

- 00010

- CR

CHRISTOPHER SPEARS , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No s . 12

- 02809

- CRM

- 361 and 12

- 05062

- CRF

- 361

MEMORANDUM OPINION

These appeals were referred to mediation on February 2, 2023, and by that referral,

the appeals were suspended. Appellant has now filed an Unopposed Motion to
Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal in both appeals asserting that the parties have reached a pre

mediation settlement dispositive of all claims and defenses asserted in the underlying

trial co urt matter and requesting a dismissal of both appeals. Appellant has signed bothSpears v. State Page 2 motions, and appellee is unopposed to the relief requested.
The suspension of these appeals is lifted. Appellant’s motions are granted , and
the appeals are dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a).

TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Davis 1 Motions granted Appeals dismissed Opinion delivered and filed March 15 , 2023 Do not publish [ OT06 ]

1 The Honorable Rex Davis, Senior Justice (Retired) of the Tenth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 20 16 - 0733 Directorate ID : 2015 - SW - 040 - AD Helicopter Model: Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 2,236 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The proposed actions are intended to prevent an main rotor blade fatigue crack, which could lead to MRB failure and subsequent loss of helicopter control. Costs :  The visual inspection would require 1 work hour. No parts would be needed, so the cost per helicopter would total $85 . The cost for the U.S. fleet would total $190,060.  Altering each main rotor blade ( MRB ) , if necessary , would require 2 work hours and $65 for parts. We estimate a total cost of $235 per helicopter and $525,460 for the U.S. fleet.

 Replacing a MRB, if n ecessary , would require 3 work hours. Parts would cost $19,900 for the Model R44 and R44 I I and $20,900 for the R66 helicopter for a total cost of $20,155 and $21,155, respectively , per MRB.

Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Fred Guerin
(Reap. Dec. 11000)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 7769-H.

(Decided June 9, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John*W. *Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Oourt:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.O., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (See. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for ap-praisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> *6944. That the plaintiff; duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon, the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6137

MICHAEL J. HOINESS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DR. ABDUL JALALUDEEN, Physician; KATIE CARTWRIGHT, Physician's Assistant; J. DULEY, Registered Nurse; D. ARMOUT, Deputy; EMMA FLOYD, Registered Nurse , Defendants

- Appellees , and NAPHCARE, INC., Health Care Provider , Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv - 00358

- AJT

- IDD )

Submitted : June 15, 2023 Decided: June 21, 2023

Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6137 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 Michael J. Hoiness , Appellant Pro Se. Grace Morse

- McNelis , SANDS ANDERSON, PC , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6137 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: Michael J. Hoiness appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to vacate the court’s prior order denying relief on Hoiness’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint . On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hoiness’ informal brief does not challenge the basis
fo r the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order.
See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issu es preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 decisio nal process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6137 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
November 8, 1954

No. 58514.

Suit 4809.

#### B. K. Elliott Co. *v.*United States.

A. R. D. 37. (Appeal dismissed September 15, 1954.)
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 2 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 2 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 2 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 2 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 2 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 2 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 2 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 7 of 7
(Reap. Dec. 8138)

#### Fuchs Shoe Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 2368.

(Decided July 24, 1952)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (Allerton deC. Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> (1) It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the above specified reap-praisement appeal is limited to the items of footwear identified on the invoice covered by the appeal, as 300 cartons of women’s huaraches from Mexico.

> (2) That said items of footwear were entered at a unit value of $0.72 per pair, U. S. currency, net packed, and that they were appraised at $0.82 per pair, U. S. currency net packed.

> (3) That at the time when such footwear was exported from Mexico to the United States there was no “foreign value” therefor as defined in Section 402 (c), Tariff Act of 1930.

> (4) That at the time when such footwear was exported from Mexico to the United States, such merchandise was freely offered for sale in Guadalajara, the principal market of Mexico for this type of footwear, in the usual wholesale quantities of 1,000 pairs or more, and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to all purchasersju^the United States at a price of $0.73, U. S. currency, per pair net packed F. O. B. Guadalajara, Mexico.

> (5) The above specified appeal is submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the 300 cartons of women’s huaraches here involved, and that such value was $0.73, United States currency,per pair net packed f. o. b. Guadalajara, Mexico.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

April 18, 1947

No. 51666.

#### Protests 533647-G, etc., of Merrill Clark & Meinig, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was sustained.
rd
           1




---



##### 



st
  
    
    Medical and Dental insurance eligible the first of the month following your hire date
    
    Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
    
    Long Term Disability insurance coverage starting the first of the month following
your hire date
    
    Flexible Spending Account  Section 125 Medical Reimbursement and Dependent Care
accounts eligible within 30 days of your hire date for the following 1st of
the month effective date
    
    AFLAC  Voluntary Cancer Protection, Short Term Disability, Personal Recovery and
Accident / Injury Protection Plans available following date of hire and also during open
enrollment periods
    
    Paid vacation. You will be eligible for 3 weeks paid vacation within your first year
of employment. This allowed vacation time does not apply to the RLH Vacation Policy.
As such, these approved but unearned vacation hours will not be entered into our payroll
system until requested and taken. In addition, should your employment with RLH end
before you have earned vacation hours under our normal vacation policy, this approved
but unearned vacation will not be paid out at separation nor will it be subject to any
rollover consideration. Starting January 1, 2012, your vacation will fall within the
RLH vacation policy, as detailed in the RLH benefits handbook.
    
    Paid sick leave
    
    A special paid Year-End Break to be taken each calendar year between December 25 and
January 1
    
    Eight (8) paid holidays each year and one (1) personal day
    
    Participation in the RLH 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan with a discretionary match
which, if made, will be on a graduated basis based on length of service, eligible on
your hire date
    
    Direct Deposit
    
    Option to purchase shares of RLH stock at a 15% discount through payroll deduction
under Red Lions Employee Stock Purchase Plan
    
    Voluntary Term Life and AD&D Insurance coverage eligible the first of the month
following your hire date
    
    Continuing education reimbursement
    
    Discounted Red Lion Family of Hotels accommodations for you and your family
     2




---



##### 



Eligible expenses:
 
    
    Moving expenses of household goods through full service carrier or truck rental
    
    Associated packing materials
    
    Home closing costs (for home sale and for home purchase); and offsite storage
    
    Mileage to destination for up to 2 cars
    
    Car registration for up to 2 cars
    
    Drivers license fees for up to 2 people
    
    One trip for you and your family to seek housing
      3




---



##### 



st
 /s/ Dan Jackson

Employee Signature
 Through personalized, exuberant service, we will create the most memorable guest experience possible, allowing us to be the leader in our markets.
 4
No. 59934.

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 236133-K (New York).

*442Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that the advertising trays are manufactured articles, not specially provided for, wholly or in chief value of metal other than gold, lead, platinum, silver, tin, or tin plate, and that they are not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer. On the record presented, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 12.2
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Frans Spaargaren, Chief Financial Officer of Gemplus International S.A., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Gemplus International S.A.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;
4. The company’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe company and have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report, based on such evaluation;and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered bythis annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting ; and
5. The company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information, and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: June 29, 2005         /s/ Frans Spaargaren         Frans Spaargaren    Chief Financial Officer