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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 2 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. DEUTCH (for himself, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. RASKIN, and Mr. KATKO) 

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 relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. 

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 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 2 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. To advance democratic self-government 

3 and political equality, and to protect the integrity of gov4 ernment and the electoral process, Congress and the 

5 States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the rais6 ing and spending of money by candidates and others to 

7 influence elections. 

8 ‘‘SECTION 2. Congress and the States shall have 

9 power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate 

10 legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons 

11 and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, 

12 including by prohibiting such entities from spending 

13 money to influence elections. 

14 ‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be con15 strued to grant Congress or the States the power to 

16 abridge the freedom of the press.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Exhibit
32


Exhibit
32 to Form 10K





Written
Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350





Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bowl America Incorporated (the
"Company"), respectively, hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 28, 2009, (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.







Leslie H.
Goldberg


Chief
Executive Officer








Cheryl A.
Dragoo


Chief
Financial Officer





Date:  September
25, 2009
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-15405

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cr-00024-CAR-CHW-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

WILLIAM CAMPBELL, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(April 13, 2015)

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-15405 Date Filed: 04/13/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Charles Brant, counsel for William Campbell, has moved to withdraw from 

further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent 

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of 

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals 

no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion is GRANTED, and Campbell’s 

convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-15405 Date Filed: 04/13/2015 Page: 2 of 2
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

APRIL 6, 2015 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 84.16. 

1. SD33469 Michael Curbow, Claimant-Appellant 

 vs. 

 Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian for the 

 Second Injury Fund, Respondent-Respondent 

 2. SD33200 Howard Haskins and Leah G. Haskins, Plaintiffs-Appellants 

 vs. 

 Annabelle Adams, Defendant-Appellant, Michael H. Lind 

 and Mary Lind, Phillip Schrippe and Miriam Schrippe, 

 Defendants-Respondents 

 3. SD33049 Tommy Katsantonis, Respondent 

 vs. 

 Kelly A. Katsantonis, Appellant
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 10.10



September 10, 1996



Dear Subscriber:

We refer to the Private Placement Purchase Agreement between you and the Company
dated June 7, 1996 ( the "Prior Agreement").  The Prior Agreement is hereby
rescinded, as if it had never been signed.  You will promptly deliver to the
Company, for cancellation, all instruments which were delivered to you under the
Prior Agreement.

Concurrently herewith, the Company and you are entering into a Private Placement
Purchase Agreement dated of this date and effective as of June 7, 1996 (the "New
Agreement").  Amounts paid by you to the Company under the Prior Agreement are
deemed to have been returned to you by the Company and to have been immediately
reinvested by you as the full purchase price for securities purchased by you
under the New Agreement.

Please confirm your agreement with the foregoing by signing and returning the
enclosed copy of this letter.

                                       ALL-COMM MEDIA CORPORATION


                                       By: /s/ E. William Savage
                                           ---------------------
                                           E. William Savage
                                           President

Agreed:


/s/ Subscriber
-----------------------
By:
# TWK

# NXTMONTH

# THREEMONTH

# Old Figure 7

Percent of tariff

For the week ending April 2:  6 percent lower than the previous week; 40 percent lower than last year; and 44 percent lower than the 3-year average.

# New Figure 9 Redesign

Percent of tariff

# Figure 9 data

Index - 4-week running average

# Figure Text

# Old Table 8

# New Table 9 Redesign

# Table 9_data
1

Filed 4/15/15 In re Gallegos CA4/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION TWO 

In re ASHLEY GALLEGOS, 

 on Habeas Corpus. 

 E063002 

 (Super.Ct.Nos. RIC1501725 & 

 CR58553) 

 OPINION 

 ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus. Elaine M. 

Kiefer, Judge. Petition granted in accordance with the Attorney General’s concession 

and agreement. 

 Steven L. Harmon, Public Defender, Joshua Knight, Deputy Public Defender, for 

Petitioner. 

 Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, 

Eric A. Swenson and Jennifer B. Truong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent. 

 This court has reviewed the petition and supporting documents, and has requested 

and received an informal response from the Attorney General. In accordance with the 
2

request of the petition and the acquiescence by the People, the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus is granted. 

DISPOSITION 

 The matter is remanded to the Superior Court of Riverside County for 

resentencing pursuant to People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354 and Miller v. 

Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. ___ [132 S.Ct. 2455]. The superior court shall set a schedule 

for briefing and argument. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

RAMIREZ 

 P. J. 

We concur: 

HOLLENHORST 

 J. 

MILLER 

 J.
Exhibit 32.2





Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or


Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code





In connection with the Quarterly Report of OHA Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2018 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Cory E. Gilbert, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 to my knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(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.

Date:May 14, 2018/s/ Cory E. GilbertCory E. GilbertChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
**Exhibit 31.1**

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

I, Rajesh Kalathur, certify that:

​

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of John Deere Owner Trust 2023-C (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

​

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing, and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

​

4.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

​

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

​

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association (as indenture trustee).

​

​

| 4                      | ​ | ​                                     |
|------------------------|---------|---------------------------------------------|
| Date: January 24, 2025 | By:     | */s/ Rajesh Kalathur*                       |
| ​                | ​ | Rajesh Kalathur                             |
| ​                | ​ | President of John Deere Capital Corporation |
| ​                | ​ | (as Servicer)                               |

​

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Emilio Tafur, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), rendered June 2, 1988,- convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully sold a narcotic drug to an undercover officer *(see,*Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be *643determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88; *see also, People v Davis,*171 AD2d 672). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor vouched for the credibility of the witnesses and referred to facts not in evidence, these comments were either a fair response to defense counsel’s summation *(see, People v Rodriguez,*159 AD2d 356, 357; *People v Rodriguez,*140 AD2d 723, 724; *People v Switzer,*115 AD2d 673, 673-674; *People v Gilmore,*106 AD2d 399, 401) or concerned permissible inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Additionally, while the prosecutor’s comments regarding the unrefuted testimony of the People’s witnesses may have drawn attention to defendant’s failure to testify, the court promptly delivered curative instructions and rendered harmless any possible impropriety *(see, People v Lynch,*145 AD2d 440; *People v Allen,*135 AD2d 823; *see also, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Dixon,*165 AD2d 832), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
SCAQMD Governing Clean Fuels/ Other Federal EPA §105 FY - 14Account Description Actual Interest Lobbyist Board TitleVMobile Srcs Drawdowns Budget Nonrecurrent TotalPersonnel 65,886,490$ 0$ (259,246)$ 0$ 0$ (1,038,389)$ 64,588,85464,588,854$Fringe Benefits 35,125,6090(22,302)00(534,823)34,568,48334,568,483Travel 291,460(59,356.49)(39,219)00(1,627)191,257191,257Supplies 2,709,636(335)(4,086)00(223,204)2,482,0122,482,012Contracts 13,409,278(784,256)(453,998)00(180,932)11,990,091(935,166)11,054,925Other 4,233,527(836)(142,230)00(974,004)3,116,4583,116,458Principal Repayment 3,159,384000003,159,3843,159,384Interest 4,031,995(4,031,995)0000000Prior Year Expense 1,116,103000001,116,1031,116,103Uncollectible Accts (43,451)00000(43,451)(43,451)Equipment 3,684,7990000(188,965)3,495,834(2,989,943)505,891Title V Activities(6,329,230)(6,329,230)(6,329,230)CF/MS Activities(3,176,394)(3,176,394)(3,176,394)FY 14 ACTUAL $133,604,829EXEMPTIONS (4,031,995)(844,783)(921,081)(6,329,230)(3,176,394)(3,141,944)(3,925,109)TOTAL FY14 105 ADJUSTED GRANT ACTUALS115,159,403$FY 14 Actual MOE Calc:115,159,403$Total Exp(4,919,166)Less Federal Share110,240,237Non Federal(3,925,109)Nonrecurrent106,315,127$MOEFY 13 Actual MOE Calc:118,494,810$Total Exp(5,061,521)Less Federal Share113,433,289Non Federal(8,337,237)Nonrecurrent105,096,053$MOEFEDERAL FISCAL YEAR-14 GRANT FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT WORKSHEET12/24/2014 - 12:59 PMMKLc:\data\epa grants\fsr\FSR-WS-FFY13-14-1.xlsFSR Calculations
COMMODITY PROCUREMENT PROGRAM
Aquatic Commodity Breakout Session




AQUATICS PURCHASES

SPECIFICATION CHANGES - ALL SPECIES

Effective July 1, 2023, contractors will be required to use 

traceable, tamper-evident commercial seals (ex. flat 

metal, wire, plastic, etc.) or high security seals (high 

security bolt, barrier-type, or equivalent device which can 

only be removed by bolt cutter type tools). Seals shall be 

sequentially numbered. 
AQUATICS PURCHASES

SPECIFICATION CHANGES

• SUPPLEMENT 500 CANNED TUNA

• SUPPLEMENT 507 SALMON PRODUCTS

• SUPPLEMENT 509 ALASKA POLLOCK PRODUCTS

• SUPPLEMENT 511 CATFISH PRODUCTS

NO FEDERAL PURCHASE PROGRAM SPECIFICATION (FPPS) 

Changes planned for these products. 
AQUATICS PURCHASES

SPECIFICATION CHANGES

NEW SUPPLEMENT 512 FISHERY PRODUCTS

INCLUDES FPPS FOR:

• ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH FILLETS

• PACIFIC SEAFOOD ITEMS

• WILD SHRIMP

• WALLEYE FILLETS
AQUATICS PURCHASES

SPECIFICATION CHANGES

ALL SUPPLEMENT 512 PRODUCTS WILL NOW INCLUDE THESE REQUIREMENTS:

DEVELOPMENT AND SUBMISSION OF A TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

USDA-LP QAD AUDIT OVERSIGHT

USDC SEAFOOD INSPECTION APPROVED ESTABLISHMENT

USDC GRADE A 

CONTRACTOR CHECKLODING AT TIME OF SHIPMENT
AQUATICS PURCHASES

SPECIFICATION CHANGES

SECTION 400-500 of SUPPLEMENT 512 will contain instructions for the 

development of a TECHNICAL PROPOSAL using the following format:

• PLAN

• DO

• CHECK

• ACT

The purpose of the Technical Proposal is to describe how you will meet the 

Supplement and FPPS requirements. The QAD audits will be based on the 

Supplement, FPPS and Technical Proposals.
AQUATICS PURCHASES

SPECIFICATION CHANGES

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FORMAT

PLAN – Describe the FPPS Requirement. 

 i.e. Metal Detection-All products shall be free of metal 

 contaminants. Detection of SS, ferrous and non-ferrous metals is 

 required.

DO - Describe the production steps taken to meet each FPPS 

 requirement.
AQUATICS PURCHASES

SPECIFICATION CHANGES

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FORMAT

CHECK – Describe all quality assurance methods used to verify conformance to each FPPS requirement. Include any forms or records used to document the CHECK step.

ACT - Identify all corrective actions to be taken if the CHECK step exposes deviations from contractual and FPPS requirements that occur during production. Include preventative actions taken to prevent a reoccurrence.
Questions & Discussion
EX-10.5
EXEMPTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

05/09/2000 10:48            5093261872                       CHARLES A CLEVELAND

                               STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                                                        RECEIVED

                      DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
                               SECURITIES DIVISION
                   PO Box 9033, Olympia, Washington 98507-9033
      Telephone (360) 902-8760 o TDD (360) 664-8126 o FAX (360) 586-5068 o


SANDRA M VANDOURIS
CHARLES A CLEVELAND PS
ROCK POINTE CORPORATE CTR
N 1212 WASHINTON STE 304
SPOKANE WA 99201-2401

EXEMPTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
[WAC 460-44A-300/RCW 21-20.320(17)]
Subject:    NOVA OIL INC
            File No: E-260X3

Your notice of claim of exemption from registration for the exemption above was
received on 05104/00. In order to obtain the protection of the exemption, all
its conditions must be satisfied. The person claiming the availability of the
exemption bas the burden of establishing that the exemption conditions have been
satisfied with respect to each purchaser.

The Securities Administrator has not passed upon the offering opt the offering
circular. This Exemption Acknowledgement does not purport to conclude that the
exemption is available, nor does it relieve the claimant of the obligation to
provide fall disclosure of all material facts and to comply with the antifraud
and other provisions of the Securities Act, Ch. 21.20 RCW.

Please direct any questions to the person identified below.

Dated:  May 5, 2000

Contact Person:      Sara Moriarty, Customer Service Specialist
                      (360)902-8760 #2
                      smoriartyadfi.wa.gov
Order entered April 10 , 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00016-CV

NANCY RANGEL, Appellant

V.

MCMACKIN-BEAM REVOCABLE TRUST, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-05738-B

ORDER

The Court grants appellant’s motion to extend time to file reply brief received on 

December 8, 2014. The reply brief tendered to the Court on December 31, 2014 is ORDERED

filed as of the date of this order.

The Court also grants appellant’s motion to amend reply brief received on April 1, 2015. 

The amended reply brief tendered to the Court on April 1, 2015 is ORDERED filed as of the 

date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
CCC COMMODITY INVENTORY

As of July 31, 2019

OUTSTANDING UNDER LOAN

CY 2016 CY 2017 CY 2018 CY 2019

(Million Units Except as Noted)

BUTTER (LB) - - - -

CHEESE (LB) - - - -

NONFAT DRY MILK (LB) - - - -

BARLEY (BU) 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0

CORN (BU) 0.0 0.7 283.4 0.0

OATS (BU) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SORGHUM (BU) 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0

SOYBEANS (BU) 0.0 0.0 79.4 0.0

WHEAT (BU) 0.1 0.0 18.1 2.5

RICE (CWT) 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0

REFINED SUGAR (Mil. Lbs.) 0.0 0.0 675.5 0.0

 IN-PROCESS BEET 0.0 0.0 301.5 0.0

RAW CANE SUGAR (Mil. Lbs.) 0.0 0.0 604.4 0.0

 IN-PROCESS CANE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

HONEY (Mil. Lbs.) 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0

PEANUTS (tons) 0.0 0.0 705,800.0 0.0

CANOLA SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 558.0 0.0

CRAMBE (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FLAXSEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0

MUSTARD SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0

RAPESEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SAFFLOWER SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0

SESAME SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SUNFLOWER SEED (OIL) (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 157.0 0.0

SUNFLOWER SEED (Other) (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0

DRY PEAS (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 349.0 0.0

LENTILS (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 595.0 0.0

CHICKPEAS (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 955.0 0.0

UPLAND COTTON (BALE) 200 0 848,200 0

ELS COTTON (BALE) 0 0 84,100 0

1/ Minor Oilseeds & Pulses are in thousand units.

Report Completed: August 6, 2019

2/ CCC acquired 2018 Crop Year upland cotton as follows: 15 bales from June 2019 and 81 bales from July 2019 maturin 

bales represent the total upland cotton in inventory. 
CCC-OWNED

INVENTORY 2/

(Actual Units)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

96

0

ng loans. These 96
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1260. ERIC SHEPHERD v. THE STATE.

In April 2013, the trial court revoked three years of Eric Shepherd’s probation,

after finding that Shepherd violated a special condition of probation. Shepherd filed

a direct appeal from that order, which was dismissed based on his failure to follow

the discretionary appeal procedures. Shepherd v. State, Case No. A14A1065

(dismissed March 11, 2014). He also filed an application for discretionary appeal

from the order, which we dismissed as untimely. Shepherd v. State, Case No.

A14D0322 (dismissed May 6, 2014). Shepherd then filed an application for

discretionary appeal from the trial court’s order clarifying a condition of his

probation, which we denied on the merits. Shepherd v. State, Case No. A15D0102

(denied November 7, 2014). Shepherd has now filed a notice of appeal from the

denial of his application for discretionary appeal. 

“It is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum. The

same is true of appeals of the same issue on the same grounds.” Echols v. State, 243

Ga. App. 775, 776 (534 SE2d 464) (2000); see also Jordan v. State, 253 Ga. App.

510, 511 (2) (559 SE2d 528) (2002). The denial of Shepherd’s application for

discretionary appeal was an adjudication on the merits and is not a directly appealable

order. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

March 26, 2015
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.

03/26/2015