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:

A21A1002. ROBERT DEREK BAILEY v. RHONDA BUNN BAILEY.

Robert Derek Bailey filed a pro se notice of appeal of the parties’ final

judgment and decree of divorce. We lack jurisdiction because — pretermitting

whether the notice of appeal was a nullity on the basis that Mr. Bailey was

represented by counsel when he filed it, see Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357, 361-363

(3) (767 SE2d 24) (2014); Jacobsen v. Haldi, 210 Ga. App. 817, 818-819 (1) (437

SE2d 819) (1993) — appeals from “judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and

other domestic relations cases” must be made by application for discretionary appeal.

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). “[C]ompliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is

jurisdictional.” Fabe v. Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322, 332 (1) (405 SE2d 265) (1991).

Mr. Bailey’s failure to follow the discretionary appeals procedure deprives us of

jurisdiction over this direct appeal, 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.

March 12, 2021

03/12/2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         324,437
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               324,437
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 578,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,804
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   578,517
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1510
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               196,896
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (195,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (195,386)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (195,386)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)


</TABLE>
#### Lee Albert ANSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-196.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 17, 1970.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Gerald Sohn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

*270Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgments of the lower court hereby appealed are affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         241,778
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  389,562
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,200
<INVENTORY>                                    440,116
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,104,007
<PP&E>                                         225,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                  92,620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,494,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          839,060
<BONDS>                                        528,203
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,810,354
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,494,782
<SALES>                                        764,997
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               764,997
<CGS>                                          404,275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  404,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               242,738
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                112,427
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,012
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            105,119
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   105,119
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

 38.5

 39.0

 39.5

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/09

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
PUBLIC LAW 111–270—OCT. 12, 2010 124 STAT. 2851 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3689: 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 111–198 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 155 (2009): Oct. 13, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 156 (2010): Sept. 28, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–270 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the Vietnam Veterans 

Memorial Fund, Inc. to establish a Vietnam Veterans Memorial visitor center, 

and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR VIETNAM 

MEMORIAL VISITOR CENTER. 

Section 6(b) of Public Law 96–297 (16 U.S.C. 431 note) is 

amended— 

(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting 

‘‘; and’’; and 

(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following: 

‘‘(5) any reference in section 8903(e) of title 40, United 

States Code, to the expiration at the end of or extension beyond 

a seven-year period shall be considered to be a reference to 

an expiration on or extension beyond November 17, 2014.’’. 

Approved October 12, 2010. 

Oct. 12, 2010 

[H.R. 3689] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          20,725
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,725
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,840
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,170
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,385
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,725
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,720
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,720)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.004)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
31.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Billy
M. Dodson, certify that:




1.           I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1) of Ministry
Partners Investment Corporation (the “Company”);




2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;




4.           The
Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the Company and we have:


(a)           Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
in which this report is being prepared;


(b)           Intentionally
omitted;


(c)           Evaluated
the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation;


(d)           Disclosed
in this report any change in the Company's internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal quarter (the
Company’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
material affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's
internal control over financial reporting; and


5.           The
Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's
auditors and the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):


(a)           All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 other employees who
have a significant role in the Company's internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:
      May 5, 2008
              By:
      /s/ Billy M.
      DodsonBilly
      M. DodsonPresident
#### Ivey J. JUSTICE and Kathleen C. Justice, Appellants, v. CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, Florida, municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-232.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 16, 1970.

*135James E. Moore, Jr. of Moore & Crump, Niceville, for appellants.

Walter J. Smith of Smith, Tolton, Wolff & Rooney, Fort Walton Beach, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs instituted this suit against the City of Fort Walton Beach alleging liability for damages incurred by them upon the theory that the City was negligent in the planning, installation and maintenance of drainage facilities which was the proximate cause of the flooding of their home. Plaintiffs now appeal from a directed verdict entered by the trial judge in favor of defendant, City, at the conclusion of the trial of the cause.

The primary question posed by this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence adduced by plaintiffs that required submission of same to the jury. A review of the evidence presented in this cause reflects that plaintiffs failed to adduce that quantum of proof requisite for submission of the cause to the jury, and in view of this conclusion, we pretermit any discussion as to whether the City would be liable for negligent planning, installation and maintenance of its drainage facilities.

The judgment appealed is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, J J., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **3 -**  **6 065** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,
v. GALACIO CISNEROS

- ALCANTAR , Defendant

- Appell ant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 5:05

- cr - 00132

- H

- 1; 5:07

- cv - 00027

- H )

Submitted : April 25, 2013 Decided: April 30, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Galacio Cisneros

- Alcantar , Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Galacio Cisneros

- Alcantar seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s orde r denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion
. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district cou rt ’ s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court ’ s order was entered on the docket

on February 23, 2009 . The notice of appeal was filed on December 23, 2012
. ∗ Because Cisneros

- Alcantar failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

∗ For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).3 adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument w ould not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
TheHonorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western 1 Distri ctof Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorabl e William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for th e Western District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1576

___________ Curtis Lamar McQueen, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Gary Starke; Joe Potter; Bill * Western District of Missouri. Bruening; Ray Ditzfield; Pettis Cty. * [UNPUBLISHED] Bd. of Commissioners; Monsees * Commissioner; Pettis Cty. Sheriff & s * Department, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 26, 1998 Filed: August 28, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Curtis McQueen, a Missouri pr isoner, appeals from the district court & s adverse 1 grant of summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having reviewed the-2-

record and the parties & briefs, we conclude that the district court did not err
. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See8th Cir. R. 47B. We al so deny McQueen & s motion on appeal for a preliminary injunction. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALEXANDER HELTERBRAN, JR., :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-2338

v. : (JUDGE MANNION)

ANN TARGONSKI, ANTHONY J. :

ROSINI, MICHAEL P. TOOMEY,

and ROBERT JOHN, :

Defendants :

O R D E R

In accordance with the memorandum issued this same day in the

above-captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) the report of Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, (Doc. 6),

is ADOPTED;

(2) the plaintiff’s objections to the report, (Doc. 7), are

OVERRULED;

(3) the plaintiff’s complaint, (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE; and

(4) the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion 

MALACHY E. MANNION

United States District Judge

Date: May 12, 2015

O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2014 MEMORANDA\14-2338-01-ORDER.wpd

Case 4:14-cv-02338-MEM Document 11 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 1
FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS 12th Court ofAppeals District

CATHYS. LUSK, CL

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 FILE COPY

2/11/2015 

### MOORE, DAVINA WILSON Tr. Ct. No. 007-1663-11 

### COANo. 12-13-00041-CR PD-1045-14 

## Pursuantto Rule 69.4(a) T.R.A.P., the record is returned tothe courtofappeals. Abel Acosta, Clerk 12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK CATHY LUSK 

### 1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354 TYLER, TX 75701 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
#### Knoch DUKES v. WESLEY CONSTRUCTION CO. et al.

No. 39043.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                         YES! ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION

         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                      -------------------------
                                                        1996     1995    1994
                                                      --------  ------ --------
<S>                                                   <C>       <C>    <C>
Net income (loss)...................................  $(12,571) $3,478 $(21,927)
Computations of weighted average common and common
 equivalent shares outstanding:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding........    13,890   5,339      398
  Common equivalent shares from convertible pre-
   ferred stock.....................................        --   2,259       --
  Weighted average options and warrants outstanding.        --     911       --
  Common equivalent shares from stock options
   granted or issued during the twelve-month period
   prior to the Company's proposed initial public
   offering.........................................        --      25      100
                                                      --------  ------ --------
Shares used in computing net income (loss) per
 share..............................................    13,890   8,534      498
                                                      --------  ------ --------
Net income (loss) per share.........................  $  (0.91) $ 0.41 $ (44.03)
                                                      ========  ====== ========
Computation of shares used in pro forma net loss per
 share:
  Total weighted average common and common
   equivalent shares outstanding (as above).........        --      --      498
  Common equivalent shares attributable to redeem-
   able convertible preferred stock, convertible
   preferred stock, and shares issuable for
   antidilution adjustments (as-if-converted meth-
   od)..............................................        --      --    3,821
                                                      --------  ------ --------
Shares used in computing pro forma net loss per
 share..............................................        --      --    4,319
                                                      ========  ====== ========
Pro forma net loss per share........................  $     --  $   -- $  (5.08)
                                                      ========  ====== ========
</TABLE>