alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A01A1181.

#### WILSON v. CARVER.

(555 SE2d 848)

Pope, Presiding Judge.

Robert F. Wilson sent an application for discretionary appeal by certified mail to this court on October 5, 2000. The order Wilson sought to appeal, which concerned child support and modification of visitation rights, was entered on September 5, 2000. The application Wilson presented to this court did not include a pauper’s affidavit or the prescribed filing fee. Wilson’s completed application containing the filing fee was filed on October 10, 2000.

This court dismissed Wilson’s application on October 31, 2000. Wilson filed a motion for reconsideration of that dismissal, arguing that extenuating circumstances precluded the timely filing of the application. This court granted the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal and granted the application.

Because this court has no jurisdiction over this matter, we must dismiss the appeal. OCGA § 5-6-4 provides that the costs for applications for appeals filed in the Court of Appeals shall be paid “at the time of the filing of the application.” The statute then provides: “Thé clerk is prohibited from receiving the application for appeal or the brief of the appellant unless the costs have been paid or a sufficient affidavit of indigence is filed or contained in the record.” See generally *Sorrentino v. Boston Mut. Life Ins. Co.,*206 Ga. App. 771, 772 (2) (426 SE2d 594) (1992).

The mandate of OCGA § 5-6-4 is reiterated in our Court of Appeals Rule 5 which states that the clerk “shall not file any matter unless the costs have been paid or a sufficient pauper’s affidavit has been filed.” Consistently, Court of Appeals Rule 4 states that “[a] document shall be deemed filed when it is physically delivered to the Clerk’s office, with sufficient costs, if applicable. . . .” The second sentence of Court of Appeals Rule 4 elaborates upon the provisions for the filing by registered or certified mail.1

Wilson argues that the failure to file the filing fee does not warrant dismissal because this is not one of the three instances enumerated in OCGA § 5-6-48 (b). This argument lacks merit. Here, the *completed*application was not filed within 30 days of the entry of the order, as required under OCGA § 5-6-35 (d), and this court has no jurisdiction of an untimely application. Moreover, this court lacks the authority to grant an extension of time for the filing of an application for discretionary appeal. *Rosenstein v. Jenkins,*166 Ga. App. 385 (304 SE2d 740) (1983); Court of Appeals Rule 16 (c).

*175Decided October 26, 2001

*Gary C. Harris,*for appellant.

*Griner & Mírate, Galen A. Mírate, Ellisa Garrett,*for appellee.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*Blackburn, C. J., and Mikell, J., concur.*

1

 Contrary to Wilson’s arguments, we find no inconsistency between the first and second sentences of Court of Appeals Rule 4. The first sentence of the rule describes the requirements for completing; the second sentence allows for filing by mail.
#### Nicholas Vance FURR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-2590.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 12, 1988.

PER CURIAM.

Nicholas Vance Furr appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Although the trial judge denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, he did not attach to his order any portion of the files or record to refute Furr’s allegations.

Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Furr’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively show that Furr is not entitled to relief, the trial court shall order the state to file an answer. After receipt of the answer, the trial court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the trial court should summarily deny the motion again, it shall attach such portions of the record which conclusively refute Furr’s allegations. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain appellate review.

RYDER, Á.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


SUBSIDIARY                                                       JURISDICTION
----------                                                       ------------

Main Entertainment, Inc.                                          Arizona
Bamboo Club, Inc.                                                 Arizona
Cornerstone Productions, Inc.                                     Delaware
Main St. / Cornerstone Texas, Inc.                                Texas
Main St. Northwest, Inc.                                          Arizona
Main St. Hospitality, Inc.                                        Arizona
Fiddlesticks, Inc.                                                Arizona
Main St. Midwest, Inc.                                            Kansas
Main St. California, Inc.                                         Arizona
Main St. Louisiana Restaurants, Inc.                              Arizona
Main St. El Paso, Inc.                                            Arizona
Redfish America, LLC                                              Arizona
Redfish Cleveland, Inc.                                           Ohio
NUMBER 13-08-00706-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

JOHN DOE, Appellant,

v.

HEARING BEFORE THE DISTRICT 

11A-1 GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 28th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, John Doe, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 28th

District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 08-5579-A. Appellant has filed

a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that appellant no longer wishes to pursue the

appeal. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motion to

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of

the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal

at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will

issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 19th day of February, 2009.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Secundino CASTANEDA.

No. 87-KH-1279.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Castaneda, Secundino; applying for remedial writ; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. KA-5679; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “A”, No. 311-540.

Prior report: La.App., 497 So.2d 795.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Brunner
Companies Income Properties L.P. III 1997 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified 
in its entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000847319
<NAME> BRUNNER COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES L.P. III
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             837
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          14,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         11,656
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,032
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,815
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,094
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,092
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (279)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Thomas Curtis HINES v. STATE.

1 Div. 882.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 22, 1986.

ON RETURN TO REMAND

McMILLAN, Judge.

On December 11,1984, 461 So.2d 50 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), this court reversed and remanded this case to the trial court, with instructions that the circuit court conduct an evidentiary hearing on the appellant’s allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel which was made in his *pro se*petition for writ of error coram nobis. Presiding Judge Bowen dissented from the majority and issued an opinion.

After this case was remanded to the trial court, an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the appellant’s *pro se*petition for writ of error coram nobis was held. At the close of the hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the appellant’s claim for relief. The trial court then filed a return to remand with this court.

After a thorough review of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, it is apparent to us that the appellant failed to prove that he was denied effective assistance of counsel under the guidelines set out in *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The order of the trial court dated February 22, 1985 which denied the relief requested in the appellant’s petition is in all respects proper. Therefore, our judgment of December 11, 1984, which reversed the earlier order entered by the trial court, is due to be set aside and a judgment entered affirming the denial of the appellant’s petition.

JUDGMENT OF DECEMBER 11, 1984, SET ASIDE; OPINION EXTENDED;

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.
#### Daniel DEBLANC v. LAKEWOOD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al.

No. 87-C-1085.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Deblanc, Daniel; applying for writ of certiorari; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA86 0236; Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 69622.

Prior report: La.App., 507 So.2d 20.

Denied.
#### Otis BROWN, Jr., a/k/a Otis Lamar Brown, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-2540.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 22, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Julie S. Thornton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant contends, the State concedes, and we agree, that findings set forth in Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the Order of Revocation of Probation must be stricken from the Order because the trial court made no such findings at the conclusion of the revocation hearing, and no evidence was adduced to support such findings. *See Higgs v. State,*470 So.2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); *Robinson v. State,*468 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); *Delgado v. State,*423 So.2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Remanded with directions to amend the Order of Revocation of Probation by striking Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the findings.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Deborah K. NEAL.

No. 86-K-2354.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Neal, Deborah K.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 18120-KA, 18121-KA; Parish of Franklin, 5th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, Nos. 23644, 23647.

Prior report: La.App., 497 So.2d 1088.

Denied.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 51

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns

3 at the close of business on Thursday, August 5, 1999, Fri4 day, August 6, 1999, or Saturday, August 7, 1999, on

5 a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution

6 by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed

7 or adjourned until noon on Wednesday, September 8,

8 1999, or until such time on that day as may be specified

9 by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to

10 recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after

11 Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section

12 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and

13 that when the House adjourns on the legislative day of

14 Thursday, August 5, 1999, Friday, August 6, 1999, or

15 Saturday, August 7, 1999, on a motion offered pursuant

16 to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his

17 designee, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on Wednes18 day, September 8, 1999, or until noon on the second day
2

SCON 51 ES

1 after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to sec2 tion 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

3 SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the

4 Speaker of the House, acting jointly after consultation

5 with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority

6 Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the Sen7 ate and House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

8 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the Senate August 5, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 51

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess

the House of Representatives.of the Senate and a conditional adjournment of
IIA

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 53

To commemorate fallen firefighters by lowering the American flag to halfstaff on the day of the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service

in Emittsburg, Maryland.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 27 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. SARBANES, and Mr. BIDEN) submitted the following resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

To commemorate fallen firefighters by lowering the American

flag to half-staff on the day of the National Fallen

Firefighters Memorial Service in Emittsburg, Maryland.

Whereas 1,200,000 men and women comprise the American

fire and emergency services;

Whereas the fire and emergency services is considered one of

the most dangerous jobs in the United States;

Whereas fire and emergency services personnel respond to

over 16,000,000 emergency calls annually, without reservation and with little regard for their personal safety;

Whereas fire and emergency services personnel are the first

to respond to an emergency, whether it involves a fire,
2

•SJ 53 IS

medical emergency, spill of hazardous materials, natural

disaster, act of terrorism, or transportation accident;

Whereas approximately one-third of all active fire and emergency personnel suffer debilitating injuries annually; and

Whereas approximately 100 fire and emergency services personnel die annually in the line of duty: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That each year, the American flags on all Federal office

4 buildings will be lowered to half-staff on the day of the

5 National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service in

6 Emittsburg, Maryland.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

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 of American Apparel, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Adrian Kowalewski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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.

(2) The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                      |  |     |  |                         
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------
|Date: August 16, 2010 |  | By: |  | /S/    ADRIAN
KOWALEWSKI
|                      |  |     |  | Adrian Kowalewski       
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EL PASO CENTRAL APPRAISAL

DISTRICT OF EL PASO COUNTY,

TEXAS,

 Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

MISSION SENIOR COMMUNITY, INC.,

AND TIERRA DEL SOL HOUSING

CORPORATION,

 Appellees/Cross-Appellants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00085-CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2012-DCV-02157)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion filed by the parties to dismiss the appeal 

pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1 because the dispute between them has been resolved. We grant 

the motion and dismiss the appeal. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, costs of the appeal 

are taxed against the party incurring same. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d)(absent agreement of the 

parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant).

September 23, 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATIONS 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 of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Hunt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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, as amended; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





By:/s/ Steven D. HuntSteven D. HuntChief Executive Officer





Date: July 8, 2011
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7178

JAMES DION PALMER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-1762-AM) Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 19, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Dion Palmer, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James Dion Palmer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Palmer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0328 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID RICHARD SENTI ,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 18 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: James Jeremiah Shea Justice, Montana Supreme Court November 12 2020

11/12/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0328
#### Anthony P. CAMINITA v. J.F. DONNELLY.

No. 87-KH-0909.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Caminita, Anthony P.; applying for writ of habeas corpus; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-KH-15; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “K”, No. 84-2566.

Denied.
Exhibit 10.05

NEW FRONTIER MEDIA, INC.  SUMMARY OF  DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS

Each director who is not a New Frontier Media, Inc. employee receives for performance to the company of general board of
director services, including attendance at regular and special board meetings, an annual fee of $80,000, payable in equal quarterly installments. Each such director receives an additional annual fee
of $7,500 for each currently constituted board committee on which the director serves, and the chairman of each such committee receives an additional annual fee of $2,500 for such service. If at any
time the board deems it appropriate to form a new board committee, the independent members of the board shall, in their sole discretion, determine appropriate compensation for directors
performing such additional services. Each director is also reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the services provided as a member of the board and its committees. Each
director may also receive discretionary share-based compensation awards as recommended from time to time by the board's Compensation Committee and approved by a majority of the then independent
members of the board of directors.

Directors
are not permitted to sell or otherwise transfer shares of our common stock while serving as a director if the result would be to reduce the beneficial ownership to below 20,000
shares, and directors are not permitted to sell any shares unless they were acquired two years prior to any such sale.

---



QuickLinks