alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 20, 2016.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 20, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0183. CARTERSVILLE CITY SCHOOLS, et al. v. CELIA JOHNSON.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2016CV1118
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTAUDITOR

 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form10-K of our report dated February 26, 2003 on the consolidated statements ofincome, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows of Logan CountyBancShares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.  Said report is referred to in this Form 10-Kunder Part II, Item 8.

 
| /s/  McNeal, Williamson & Co. |   |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                              |   |
| Logan,  West Virginia             |   |
| March  28, 2005                   |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 99.1



Below each General Partner's name is a list of the limited  partnerships,  other
than the  Registrant,  for which the General Partner serves as a general partner
and the companies for which the General  Partner serves as a director.  The list
includes only those  limited  partnerships  and companies  which have a class of
securities  registered  pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 or are subject to the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Act.

John J. Nooney

  Limited Partnerships:

   Nooney Real Property Investors-Two, L.P.        Nooney Income Fund Ltd., L.P.

  Companies:

   None


                                       21
#### Clyde Carlton EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-207.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 18, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 on Form 10-Q of Fitzgeralds Gaming
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Philip D. Griffith, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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 of the Company as of
              the dates indicated and result of operations of the Company for
              the periods indicated.

                                         /s/ Philip D. Griffith
                                         Philip D. Griffith
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
                                         May 12, 2003
#### PM MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Thomas M. BROOKOVER, Jr., Appellee.

No. 71-261.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 21, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
TWELFTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED sritres.

sn eieigpas ——} SCHEDULE No. POPULATION. (Sarin

Enumeration District No. 22°
County —~ Dish

Mee nese te rn Se = oo CRETE Tica Bl =

ata iy a then a Roy of Sn, 1004 Ech tmameraion

on

Lien

— Ward of ety, ae 395

{fit
He

i

rea cat
i foc oy ate

ane Paey\r\ |

Bipea

oe Liat ca
ora s|

Boe i ae
Gey ee oo ele j

Lael i

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.
Btate

County

Dlacratal

Coote

LOCATION | MUUEREOLD Data

j
i
t
5

resrcitenmetanates me tamara

Unincorporated place — ethinel-tnadeh ioscrenhrtven abet Somewre
UE paraded pines SONU LO cx rocwe ube biade)

SESIDRWCE, APRIL 1, 1900

hs RSESaN pupae sateen aal Westone san” Boat Stes Boye ce
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE—BUREAU OF THE CRNGUS
SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1940

I Fargoont Wl Tomon hogs svat

BaDNo 16 E.D.No, Jb, ABS

Sheet No,

12 A

POPULATION SCHEDULE ht

yous

Enumerated by me on ___. mag. LS, 190.

nasa te... Patit shad. ___.___.._, Eniumearatos.

PERSONS 14 YEARS OLD AND OVKR--EMPLOTMEST STATUS

a feach person wheee usual plac
‘of reuldensa ah Apt 1, 1040, wea ia
this beusebeld.

am SURE FO DCETEM,

Neeaee tet
Re ty oe

§, Operon aneae + wree “teat”
wilt teria Yess giime sat name

Diget Qoalhs nace perme taralehing tterreation:

1H GEAT PLAGE iD THIS VRLSIW L2H ON APRIL 1, 10

SE eee
igsere xis» Mee zy ste See ind So

Kise "he alk eter
dime

or aee

j
i
a be eon)
j abbas

Fone TO WORE eer)

‘=

FEATH (oe Tarehory
couer eo henige wranarr)

Waa
Er

HI

ns
walk

a if

~~,

7
as >
ala |i er

Ba 1& OOCUPATION, ENDOWTEY. AND Chass oF WORKER
tag | peinan er | oerhoras ; qi Ft
Bac ey 2 ues oop ial tend eaten

Pere mankind wrk (Cua te 2h ed 1 AE per eenew,. water
po Se

occeraTIOn

yeee

Eeneeret
Intustzy of Yusinens wo

coteye mitt
Setsliarneary
barony “

16

AF |
itis | fi

ue | Wapiher af weetes worted in tee
Rguim seat Sad eae week
2 | Wrantber ot Ferme Bebedste

j

205 fe A 4D me

1¢7 heal 15_.me

5 |

7
FP) Fe} cone tears tay

=
> Lye Fe | comm inane stant

bo

f)_ 48

Sls

my Po B Raat a

tn jen fe

Gait | info
sic

cits

ro
ate

an al fs

TT

‘| Ae

a4

cs

itr

mE

y he

a §

ee

4$

| 24

ie ~
hal

AO
HS

1 40

re Change lab

Ldedaga mae!

taaner ae

Gal Mek

STON

PRRRER GPE

| Lede | Detaaae |

30

P temas 5

4o

zl | —fatediae Za cn.a.i= (Peel Saha

saan ISS (sae

tS Dirt

vA

t

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

XOXO

xoxa

tRPERR RJ

SUPPLEMENTARY
QUESTIONS

POR PRRSONS 14 TEARS OLD AXD OVER

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY—DO NOT WRITE IN THEESS COLUMNE

Fer Forvons Exwanrnted ou Lines 14 ond 29

a
4

AOCtAY sRoORETY

‘TEUAL ODUUPATION. INDUGTAT. AND CLASS OF WORKER

sh seh Ire bx pipabendl

yy Se oe
Mg) ahem

‘Drovives work expesioart, auier * Dane" th Cel. tb and leave Cols o and 7

=o, |
na
eel

TITAL OCCUFATION

Supp gage

=a mat =

as

4

“ tne Tian, Sapheas __|
9 | Hennifesen “Frtafel |

ae ce

Cul & YALER OF WOME, TF OWNERS

STMNOLE
amp
EXPLANATORY
NOTES

Od. HA, KIUIEESY GRAD OF SOLOS, OOMFIETED
fun oe e
Rlnmmoncsry saknal, Matte ibgraide 1, 8, aie ta #
igh ected, Sa bo Gt poue__ Bt, BH,
(Celiage, lt = Och pear ___ D4 OR GA C4
(Cedinge, M2 or gubeoquent peat

+
bl bal j

(Cals. 0 aad €1, CLANS OF WOREEE.
REI ae

= lary
Sears

‘Woking ee ewe emeest Oa
Papell bay werker
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 97-10964 Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DANYEL BOLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(4:96-CR-129-1-Y)

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

July 1, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Danyel Boley appeals his conviction and sentence for

distribution of cocaine base. He argues that the district court

abused its discretion in allowing an unduly suggestive in-court

identification and by admitting physical evidence with insufficient

evidence concerning the chain-of-custody. Boley also contends that

his sentence should not have been based on the quantity of cocaineNo. 97-10964 -2-

base concerned in Count Two of the indictment and that Boley should

have been sentenced on the amount of pure cocaine involved, not the

mixture that is cocaine base.

Boley waived his in-court-identification issue by failing

to brief the district court's denial of his motion for a lineup

based in part on Boley's failure to comply with a local rule that

motions be supported with a brief. S ee United States v. Wilkes

, 20

F.3d 651, 652 (5th Cir. 1994); F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 28(a)(4); Yohey v.

C ollins

, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Even if we

considered that issue as a plenary matter, the in-court

identification was not impermissibly suggestive. The evidence

concerning the chain of custody was sufficient for admission.

United States v. Casto , 889 F.2d 562, 568-69 (5th Cir. 1989). The

sentencing judge did not err by including the weight of the

diluents in cocaine base or by including the conduct concerned in

Count Two of the indictment. U nited States v. Smallwood

, 920 F.2d

1231, 1237-38 (5th Cir. 1991); See United States v. Cartwright , 6

F.3d 294, 303-04 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4300

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES ERVIN LADSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-01142-JFA-1) Submitted: April 27, 2007 Decided: May 8, 2007 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. W. Michael Duncan, AUSTIN, LEWIS & ROGERS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Anne Hunter Young, Assi stant United State Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.*Upon the record before us it is not entirely clear as to whether the statements at issue were made by the same or two different co-conspirators. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Charles Ervin Ladson was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to commit an offense or to defraud the United States (bank fraud) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1344 (2000). He was sentenced to forty-one months of imprisonment within his calculated advisory sentencing range under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Ladson argues: (1) that the district court erroneously allowed testimony from his co-Defendants regarding statements made by an unindicted co-conspirator *and (2) that his sentence is unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. First, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to admit the statements at issue into evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). United States v. Blevins , 960 F.2d 1252, 1255-56 (4th Cir. 1992) (stating standard). Second, we find that the district court’s sentence, imposed within the advisory sentencing range and after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2 000 & Supp. 2006), was reasonable. United States v. Johnson , 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating that a sentence within proper advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable); United States v. Green , 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.) (noting a court must calculate the advisory Guidelines range and then consider whether that range serves the- 3 - factors set forth in § 3553(a)), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Accordingly, we affirm Ladson’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 00-5950.

No. 00-5963.

No. 00-6001.

No. 00-6005.

No. 00-6057.

#### Shea *v.*United States; Burke *v.*United States; McDonald *v.*United States; McGonagle *v.*United States; and O’Halloran *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 211 F. 3d 658.
1 From: Hulse, David G. [David.Hulse@alcoa.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 4:53 PM To: Boyd.Rochelle@EPA.gov Subject: Revised Files for Alcoa Inc. - Wenatchee Works Attachments: CategoryHAPs_NEI42328.xls; Aluminum Co of America Wenatchee Works_NEI42328.kmz; ReleasePoint_NEI42328.xls

Attached, please find the revised kmz, ReleasePoint, and CategoryHAPs files for the Alcoa Inc. – Wenatchee Works facility (NEI42328).

<<CategoryHAPs_NEI42328.xls>> <<Aluminum Co of America Wenatchee Works_NEI42328.kmz>> <<ReleasePoint_NEI42328.xls>>

The kmz file includes both the emission points and the property boundary.

We used the fugitive (area) source approach to represent the Potline Roof Vents and the Anode Bake Oven Roof Vents. Where we believe that the point should be deleted, the cell is sh aded red. The cells not shaded in red matched MACT emissions sources and the coordinates were confirmed.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

David Hulse
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Jun-30-1998   
<PERIOD-END>                                  Jun-30-1998   
<CASH>                                          1,092,000   
<SECURITIES>                                   19,462,000   
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,523,000   
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (72,000)   
<INVENTORY>                                     5,188,000   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               29,896,000   
<PP&E>                                         11,657,000   
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,417,000)  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 36,171,000   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,143,000   
<BONDS>                                         3,013,000   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0   
<PREFERRED>                                             0   
<COMMON>                                           30,000   
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,985,000   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   36,171,000   
<SALES>                                        21,773,000   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               21,773,000   
<CGS>                                          13,744,000   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,744,000   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                5,284,005   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,041,000   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,704,000   
<INCOME-TAX>                                      181,000   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,523,000   
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0   
<CHANGES>                                               0   
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,523,000   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .60   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .60   
                                               

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 8 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Barrick Gold Corporation (the Company) is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the
Report). I, Gregory C. Wilkins, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:  a)
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andb)
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. Date:   March 30, 2005 /s/   Gregory C. Wilkins
Name: Gregory C. Wilkins
Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer
Order issued November fl~, , 2012 00503S

In The

No. 05-12-01174-CV

IZZY ASHKENAZY, Appellant

V.

LSREF2 CLOVER REO2, LLC, Appellee

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 19, 2012 motion to combine briefs and oral

argument. We DENY appellant’s motion to the extent he requests that he and the two appellants in

appellate cause number 05-12-01172-CV file one combined brief.

We GRANT appellant’s motion to the extent that he requests that he and the two appellants

in appellate cause number 05-12-01172-CV present a single oral argument. The amount of time for

oral argument will be determined by the submissions panel.
#### John Willie McQUEEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-854.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 21, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-51470

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO ROMERO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-497-1

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Romero appeals his conviction for production of child 

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). According to Romero, his 

conviction violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because the 

alleged production of child pornography was purely intrastate and noneconomic. In advancing this argument, Romero acknowledges that this court 

previously has rejected similar Commerce Clause arguments, see United States 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 6, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-51470 Document: 00514262920 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2017
No. 16-51470

2

v. Kallestad, 236 F.3d 225, 226-31 (5th Cir. 2000) and United States v. Dickson, 

632 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 2011), but he contends that this court’s prior rulings 

do not govern here, particularly in light of Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 

2077, 2086 (2014) and Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 550 

(2012) (National Federation).

We review the constitutional challenge de novo. Kallestad, 236 F.3d at 

227. We have held that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to prohibit 

local, intrastate production of child pornography where the materials used in 

the production were moved in interstate commerce. Dickson, 632 F.3d at 192; 

Kallestad, 236 F.3d at 226-31. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bond did not 

abrogate the holdings of these cases. See United States v. McCall, 833 F.3d 

560, 564-65 (5th Cir. 2016). Likewise, under the rule of orderliness, “we are 

not at liberty to overrule our settled precedent because the Supreme Court’s 

decision in National Federation did not overrule it.” United States v. Alcantar, 

733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013). Therefore, we are bound by Kallestad and

Dickson, which render Romero’s arguments unavailing.

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-51470 Document: 00514262920 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000948218
<NAME> MINN DAK FARMERS COOPERATIVE
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                              992
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    12,792
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                      82,635
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 99,205
<PP&E>                                          166,763
<DEPRECIATION>                                   55,779
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  226,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            84,181
<BONDS>                                          12,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                      18,483
<COMMON>                                            120
<OTHER-SE>                                       68,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    226,386
<SALES>                                          53,349
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 53,273
<CGS>                                            19,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    19,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1,394
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,230
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5,566
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5,566
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5,566
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        


</TABLE>