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:

A15A1394. DOUGLAS P. ROYCE v. DISCOVER BANK.

In this suit on account, the trial court entered summary judgment for the

plaintiff. The defendant, Douglas P. Royce, then filed a motion seeking to have the

summary judgment set aside and the matter referred to arbitration. On January 2,

2015, the trial court denied Royce’s motion. On February 10, 2015, he filed this

appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the entry of the trial

court’s order. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal

is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. Couch v. United

Paperworkers Intl. Union, 224 Ga. App. 721 (482 SE2d 704) (1997). Here, Royce

filed his notice of appeal 39 days after the trial court’s order was entered. 

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and it 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.

04/02/2015

April 02, 2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7659

REGINALD KEITH BALL,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JEFFREY ARTRIP; G. K. WASHINGTON; ASST. WARDEN WALWRATH; 

UNIT MANAGER WALTER SWINEY; COUNSELOR J. D. KING; R. 

MATHENA, Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief

District Judge. (7:14-cv-00438-GEC)

Submitted: March 20, 2015 Decided: April 10, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Keith Ball, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Keith Ball appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action without prejudice 

and denying his motions to amend his complaint and for 

reconsideration.* We affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure 

to state a claim, viewing the facts and drawing all reasonable 

inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Kensington 

Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Montgomery Cnty., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th 

Cir. 2012). To survive dismissal, a complaint must contain 

sufficient facts “to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

555 (2007), and “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face,” id. at 570. 

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s 

determination to deny a motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 59(e) and to amend a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 

F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012); see Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l 

Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (discussing 

 

* We construe Ball’s motion for reconsideration as seeking 

relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Dove v. CODESCO, 

569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978). Regardless of its 

construction, however, the outcome remains the same.
3

grounds for Rule 59(e) relief). Leave to amend should be freely 

given but may be denied when “the amendment would have been 

futile.” Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en 

banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

As the district court correctly concluded, Ball’s original 

complaint and postjudgment pleadings failed to establish that 

prison officials relied to any constitutionally significant 

degree upon the allegedly false information Ball seeks to have 

expunged from his record under Paine v. Baker, 595 F.2d 197 (4th 

Cir. 1979). Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Ball v. Artrip, No. 

7:14-cv-00438-GEC (W.D. Va. Sept. 29 & Oct. 31, 2014). 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 decisional process.

AFFIRMED
BOBBY }INDAL Post Office Box 94004 

GOV E RNO R Baton Rouge, LA. 71)804-9004 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

January 13, 2012 

AI Armendariz, Ph.D. , Regional Administrator 

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

Re: 	 Proposed Listing of the Evr-wood Treating Company/Evangeline Refining Company on 

the National Priorities List; LDEQ Agency Interest Numbers 1241 & 1245; EPA 

Identification Number LAN000605517; La. Highway 97, approximately 0.75 miles of its 

junction with Interstate Highway 10, Evangeline, Acadia Parish 

Dear Dr. Armendariz: 

This letter is to provide concurrence from the State of Louisiana with the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recommendation for the Evr-wood Treating 

Company/Evangeline Refming Company Site ("the site") to be listed on the National Priorities 

List (NPL). 

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has been actively involved with 

the site in the past, providing technical assistance to the EPA in the assessment of the site. The 

LDEQ believes that the site is eligible for proposed listing on the NPL by virtue ofthe nature of 

the heavy metal and semi-volatile contamination that remains at the site and the threat this 

contamination poses to Bayou Nezpique, residential areas, and wetland areas that are adjacent to 

the site. 

Should the site be listed on the NPL, the LDEQ will continue to assist the EPA in making the 

necessary cleanup decisions designed to protect public health and the environment in this part of 

Louisiana. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Tom Harris, Administrator, LDEQUnderground Storage Tanks and Remediation Division, at (225) 219-3716. 

Sincerely, 

6,yJindal 


Governor 

c: 	 Peggy Hatch, Secretary, LDEQ 

Cheryl Nolan, Assistant Secretary, LDEQ 

(225) 342-7015 + Fax (225) 342-7099 + wwwgov.state.la.us 
Tom Harris, Administrator, LDEQ-USTRD 

Brenda Nixon Cook, USEP A Region 6 NPL Coordinator 

Samuel Coleman, USEPA Region 6 Superfund Division Director 

LDEQ Evr-wood Treating Company lAS File; LDEQ Agency Interest Number 1245 

LDEQ Evangeline Refining Company lAS File; LDEQ Agency Interest Number 1241
1 

### SIP Revision Package

The adoption of amendments to Article 2,

Consu mer Products Regulation.2 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION

Table of Contents

1. SIP Completeness Checklist

2. Executive Order R

- 10

- 013 and Resolution 09

- 51 adopting amendmen ts to

the Consumer Products Regulation.

Attachment A: Currently Effective Regulation

. Attachment B: Regulation in Strikeout/Underlined Format

.

3. The following supporting document for other laws and regulations

mentioned in Article 2, Consumer Pro ducts Regulation:

Health and Safety Codes 38501, 38510, 38560, 38560.1, 38562, and

38580, as cited in Section 94508, “Authority cited.”

4. Materials pertaining to the ARB’s regulatory action (see For mal Letter of

Submittal to the U.S. EPA with Enclo sures: SIP Executive Order, Rule

Evaluation Form and Completeness Check List ): adoption of amendments

to Article 2, Consumer Products Regulation.

A. Office of Administrative Law Form 400 (contains OAL approval of

r egulation) with attachments.

B. Cer tificate of Rulemaking File

C. Table of Contents for Rulemaking File

.

D. Memo to OAL dated September 16, 2010, i ncluding the attachments

.

E

. Updated Informative Digest

F

. Executive Order R

- 10

- 013

G

. Resolution 09

- 51

H

. Final Statement of Reason s for Rulemaking

I

. Notice of Decision and Response

J

. Certificate of Mailing, and 45

- day Public Hearing Notice3 K

. Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement

L

. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking,

Including Text of Propo sed Regulations

.

M

. Transcript of the September 24, 2009 Public Hearing

N

. Slide Presentation

O

. Written Comments Received During the 45

- day notice Period

P

. Certificate of Mailing, Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text and

Modified Text

.

Q . Written Comments Received During the 15

- day Comment Period.

R

. Certificate of Mailing, Second Notice of Public Availability of Modified

Text and Modified Text and Additional Documents.

S. Written Comments Received During the Second 15

- day Commen t

Period.

T

. References Used by ARB Staff
Exhibit 35.1





Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.








This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 13, 2022 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2022-3 (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.  The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.





The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer.  I further certify as follows:





1. I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from July 13, 2022 through December 31, 2022, and its performance under the Agreement.





2. To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.








AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.





By:/s/ Connie CoffeyDated:March 3, 2023Connie CoffeyExecutive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
# FY11 Purchase Data- FV

Agricultural Marketing ServiceCommodity Fruit and Vegetable Purchases, Fiscal Year 2011October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011	

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service	Page &P of &N	For More Information call (202) 720-4517
April 8, 2015 

First Court of Appeals

301 Fannin 

Houston, Texas 77002

Via TexFile

RE: Case No. 01-14-00953-CV

Style: Bobbie Tremain v. Jay Oates

Dear First Court of Appeals: 

My Name is S. Scott West. I represent Bobbie Tremain in the above-referenced matter. 

Please update my contact information as follows: 

S. Scott West

The West Law Firm

1600 Highway Six, Suite 450 

Sugar Land, Texas 77478

(281) 277-1500 

(281) 277-1505 (fax) 

emily@westfirm.com 

Very truly yours,

 S. Scott West 

S. SCOTT WEST

ACCEPTED

01-14-00953-cv

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/8/2015 12:41:03 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/8/2015 12:41:03 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

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 of CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack A. Cuneo, President and 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; and

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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/    JACK A. CUNEO                 
|Jack A. Cuneo                        
|President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:
May 16, 2011
#### Jerry Jo Ludlow STONE, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 4130.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

July 27, 1979.

Ben Esch, Dickson, Evans, Esch & Papas, Anchorage, for appellant.

John A. Scukanec, Asst. Dist. Atty., Joseph D. Balfe, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, Avum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Upon appellant’s plea of no contest to eleven counts of forgery,1 the superior court imposed a sentence of four years on each count,2 to run concurrently. Appellant was made eligible for parole at the discretion of *73the parole board.3 In this appeal she challenges the court’s sentence as excessive.4

Our review of the record fails to persuade us that the superior court was clearly mistaken in imposing the sanction that it did.5 Accordingly, its sentence is affirmed. *McClain v. State,*519 P.2d 811 (Alaska 1974).

AFFIRMED.

1

. AS 11.25.020.

2

. Appellant was punishable upon each count by “imprisonment . for not less than one year nor more than 20 years.” *Id.*

3

. See AS 33.15.180.

4

. See AS 12.55.120(a); Rule 21, Alaska R.App.P.

5

. Stone was employed as a full charge bookkeeper, and by her forgeries she embezzled over $7,000 from her employer. The forgeries ín the present case commenced while she was still on probation from a 1975 conviction on a plea of guilty to three counts of embezzlement. Those offenses also involved forgeries of an employer’s checks. At that time over $78,000 of embezzled funds were traced to Stone’s bank account.
#### Swift *v.*Commonwealth, Appellant.

*Constitutional law*— Special *legislation*— Act *of April 19, 1917, P. L. 86*— State *highways*— Negligence—Suit *against State.*

The Act of April 19, 1917, P. L. 86, authorizing Harry C. Swift to sue the State, is unconstitutional for the reasons set forth in Collins v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, supra.

*581Argued Oct. 10, 1918.

January 4, 1919 :

Appeal, No. 101, Jan. T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Bedford Co., Sept. T., 1917, No. 153, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Harry C. Swift v. Commonwealth.

Before Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer, Simpson and Fox, JJ.

Reversed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Bailey, P. J.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for f6,193.33 1/3. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was in overruling defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v.

*J ohn M. Reynolds*and *William H. Keller,*First Deputy Attorney General, and *Francis Shunh Brown,*Attorney General, for appellant.

*J ohn H. J ordan,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

In accordance with the Act of May 31,1911, P. L. 468, the Commonwealth took over and was thereafter in exclusive control of certain of its highways, one of them being the road upon which the accident happened as hereinafter stated. That road was not kept in proper repair, and as a result thereof the roadbed gave way and plaintiff was injured, while traveling thereover. The jury found that the defect had existed for so long a time that the Commonwealth should have taken note of and repaired it; and that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. At the trial the Commonwealth presented a point for binding instructions which was refused, a verdict was rendered for plaintiff, a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto was duly made and dismissed, judgment was entered on the verdict, and the Commonwealth now prosecutes this appeal.

*582Plaintiff’s right to sue the Commonwealth is based upon the Act of April 19,1917, P. L. 86, which authorized him to bring suit “to recover such sum or sums of money as may be legally due to said Harry C. Swift for personal injuries sustained by said Harry C. Swift upon State highway route number 46, near Riddlesburg.” By this appeal the constitutionality of this act is directly questioned.

A comparison of the above facts with those set forth in our opinion in Ida Collins v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 262 Pa. 572, will show that they are in all essential respects exactly alike. In that case we held the Act of May 10,1917, P. L. 159, to be unconstitutional, because special legislation passed in violation of Art. Ill, Sec. 7, of the Constitution of the State. For the same reasons we hold the Act of April 19,1917, relied on by plaintiff, to be unconstitutional; and hence,

.The judgment of the court below is reversed and judgment is here entered for the defendant.
[Cite as Miller v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 123 Ohio St.3d 87, 2009-Ohio-4081.] 

MILLER, APPELLANT, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION

& CORRECTION ET AL., APPELLEES. 

[Cite as Miller v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 

123 Ohio St.3d 87, 2009-Ohio-4081.] 

Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — Res judicata 

bars petitioner from filing a successive habeas corpus petition — 

Judgment affirmed. 

(No. 2009-0555 — Submitted August 11, 2009 — Decided August 19, 2009.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Belmont County, 

No. 08-BE-35, 2009-Ohio-697. 

__________________ 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 

petition of appellant, Timothy A. Miller, for a writ of habeas corpus. Miller 

previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that raised the same issues 

as in this petition. Miller v. Eberlin, 116 Ohio St.3d 1434, 2007-Ohio-6518, 877 

N.E.2d 987. Res judicata barred Miller from filing a successive habeas corpus 

petition. Amstutz v. Eberlin, 119 Ohio St.3d 421, 2008-Ohio-4538, 894 N.E.2d 

1219, ¶ 7. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 Timothy A. Miller, pro se. 

 Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellees. 

______________________
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 of Orsus Xelent  Technologies,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report). I, Wang
Xin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 and result of
                  operations of the Company.


                                                      By: /s/ Wang Xin
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Wang Xin
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         August 15, 2005
IA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 20 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit 

the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. ROONEY of Florida (for himself, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. PALMER, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia, Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio, Mr. ZELDIN, Mr. RATCLIFFE, Mr. NORMAN, Mrs. 

LESKO, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. BUCK, and Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma) 

submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to limit the number of terms that a Member 

of Congress may serve. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 20 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has served 3 terms as 

5 a Representative shall be eligible for election to the House 

6 of Representatives. For purposes of this section, the elec7 tion of a person to fill a vacancy in the House of Rep8 resentatives shall be included as 1 term in determining 

9 the number of terms that such person has served as a Rep10 resentative if the person fills the vacancy for more than 

11 1 year. 

12 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has served 2 terms as 

13 a Senator shall be eligible for election or appointment to 

14 the Senate. For purposes of this section, the election or 

15 appointment of a person to fill a vacancy in the Senate 

16 shall be included as 1 term in determining the number 

17 of terms that such person has served as a Senator if the 

18 person fills the vacancy for more than 3 years. 

19 ‘‘SECTION 3. No term beginning before the date of 

20 the ratification of this article shall be taken into account 

21 in determining eligibility for election or appointment under 

22 this article.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ANTHONY CHRISTOPHER,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 52, 2015

§

§

§ Court Below: Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ Cr. ID No. 0108008782

§

§

 Submitted: March 16, 2015

 Decided: April 13, 2015

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 13th day of April 2015, after careful consideration of the appellant’s 

opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record below, we find it 

manifest that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior 

Court’s order, dated January 14, 2015, adopting the report and recommendations of

the Commissioner. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that the 

appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred by 

Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and that the appellant had failed to overcome the 

procedural hurdles. 
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED 

and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
Exhibit 15.4



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm



We hereby consent to the use in this Shell Company
Report on Form 20-F of our report dated March 31, 2023, relating to the balance sheets of Prime Impact Acquisition I as of December 31,
2022 and 2021, and the related statements of operations, changes in shareholders’ deficit and cash flows for the years then ended,
appearing therein, which is a part of this Shell Company Report, and to the reference to our Firm under the caption “Statement by
Experts”.



|/s/ WithumSmith+Brown, PC | 
|------------------------- | 
|                          | 
|New York, New York        | 
|September 27, 2023        |