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:

A14A1613. TUCKER et al. v. FOWLER et al.

The appellants filed this direct appeal from the trial court’s order granting the

appellees’ motion to enforce a settlement agreement. While OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1)

provides that a direct appeal may be had from a final judgment, “[i]n the case of an

order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, the order is not final until

the trial court expressly enters final judgment on that order.” Torres v. Elkin, 317 Ga.

App. 135, 138 (1) (730 SE2d 518) (2012). So “notwithstanding the trial court’s grant

of a motion to enforce a settlement, a case is not at an end until such time as the

agreement has been made the judgment of the court, thereby terminating the

litigation.” Underwood v. Underwood, 282 Ga. 643, 644 (1) (651 SE2d 736) (2007)

(citation and punctuation omitted). Thus, “final disposition of the case . . . isthe order

granting the motion to enforce and [entry of final] judgment of the trial court.” Id.

(Emphasis in original; citation an punctuation omitted). “[T]he 30-day period for

filing a notice of appeal begins to run only when the trial court explicitly enters final

judgment, rather than when the trial court grants the motion to enforce the settlement

agreement.” Torres, supra at 139 (1) (citation omitted). 

Here, the trial court did not enter final judgment after granting the motion to

enforce the settlement agreement. And the order granting the motion was not itself

a final judgment “as it did not expressly provide either that the action was dismissed

or that [appellees] receive judgment in accordance with the terms of the settlement

agreement, and thus the case was not at an end.” Zeitman v. McBrayer, 201 Ga. App.

767, 769 (2) (b) (412 SE2d 287) (1991) (citation and punctuation omitted). Because

no final judgment has been entered in the case, the appeal must be, and hereby is,

dismissed. Id. at 769 (2) (c). 

March 25, 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.

03/25/2015
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Brian D. Niebur, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on form 10-K for the year ended December31, 2003 of Entrx Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 24, 2004 /s/ Brian D. Niebur  By: Brian D. Niebur Chief Financial Officer
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
September 30, 2010 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: November 12, 2010
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE.

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT 

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S 

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT 

USDA, AMS, FVP, SCI

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
BUNCHED CARROTS 

U.S. No. 1 -- Shape 

Bunched 

August 1990 (Prev
BUNCHED CARROTS 

U.S. No. 1 -- Shape 

Bunched 

August 1990 (Prev
BUNCHED CARROTS 

Not U.S. No. 1 -- Shape 

Bunched 

August 1990 (Prev
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7615

GREGORY L. SMITH, a/k/a Sharrieff El-Shabazz,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairman of the Virginia

Parole Board, in her individual and official

capacities; DAVID N. HARKER, Vice Chairman,

Virginia Parole Board in his individual and

official capacities; GENE M. JOHNSON, Director

of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in

his individual and official capacities;

DORIS L. EWING, Manager of the Court & Legal

Services Unit of the Virginia Department of

Corrections, in her individual and official

capacities,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 05-7616

ANTONIO A. ANTHONY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairman of the Virginia

Parole Board, in her individual and official
- 2 -

capacities; DAVID N. HARKER, Vice Chairman

Virginia Parole Board, in his individual and

official capacities; GENE M. JOHNSON, Director

of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in

his individual and official capacities;

DORIS L. EWING, Manager of the Court & Legal

Services Unit of the Virginia Department of

Corrections, in her individual and official

capacities,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 05-7617

ANTHONY DENARO FREEMAN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairman of the Virginia

Parole Board, in her individual and official

capacities; DAVID N. HARKER, Vice Chairman

Virginia Parole Board, in his individual and

official capacities; GENE M. JOHNSON, Director

of the Virginia Department of Corrections, in

his individual and official capacities;

DORIS L. EWING, Manager of the Court & Legal

Services Unit of the Virginia Department of

Corrections, in her individual and official

capacities,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-05-52-2)
- 3 -

Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 29, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory L. Smith, Antonio A. Anthony, Anthony Denaro Freeman,

Appellants Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 4 -

PER CURIAM:

Gregory L. Smith, Antonio A. Anthony, and Anthony Denaro

Freeman appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See Smith v. Fahey; Anthony v.

Fahey; Freeman v. Fahey, No. CA-05-52-2 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 6,

2005 & entered Sept. 7, 2005). We also deny Appellants’ motion for

reconsideration of their request to consolidate the filing fee. 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
ACCEPTED

04-15-00155CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

4/13/2015 3:12:50 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 04/13/2015 3:12:50 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0867. A15A0877. COURSON et al. v. COLUMBIA NATIONAL

INSURANCE CO., and vice versa.

Columbia National Insurance Company (“Columbia”) has moved to withdraw

its appeal in Case No. A15A0877, which is the cross-appeal to Case No. A15A0867.

In its motion, Columbia represents that “[t]he underlying matter has been fully and

finally resolved and settled.” TimothyCourson and Suzanne Courson, the appellants

in Case No. A15A0867, have not moved to withdraw their appeal. However, they

have failed to file an appellants’ brief notwithstanding that Case No. A15A0867 was

docketed on January 5, 2015, and their appellants’ brief was due January 25, 2015.

Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a). The Coursons’ failure to file their brief within that

time may result in the dismissal of the appeal, id., and their failure to pursue the

appeal is consistent with Columbia’s representation that the underlying dispute has

been settled.

Given all of the foregoing, the appeal in Case No. A15A0867 is DISMISSED. 

Columbia’s motion to withdraw the appeal in Case No. A15A0877 is GRANTED.

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
ATTACHMENT B 

PROPOSED 15-DAY MODIFICATIONS TO THE 

PROPOSED REGULATION ORDER FOR THE 

CALIFORNIA ZERO EMISSION VECHICLE REGULATIONS 

Amend, adopt or repeal the following sections of title 13, California Code of 

Regulations, to read as set forth in the following pages: 

Amend: 

Section 1962 Zero-Emission Vehicle Standards for 2005 through 

2008 Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty 

Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles 

Test Procedure : 

2005 through 2008 Model 

Years 

California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures for 2005 through 2008 Model 

Zero-Emission Vehicles, and 2001 and 

Subsequent Model Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the 

Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck and MediumDuty Vehicle Classes 

Adopt: 

Section 1962.1 Zero-Emission Vehicle Standards for 2009 and 

Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, LightDuty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles 

Test Procedure: 

2009 and Subsequent 

Model Years 

California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures for 2009 and Subsequent Model 

Zero-Emission Vehicles, and 2001 and 

Subsequent Model Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the 

Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck and MediumDuty Vehicle Classes 

Note: The proposed amendments to section 1962 and incorporated 2005-2008 

model-year test procedure, presented to the Board on March 27, 2008, 

are shown in single underline to indicate additions and single strikeout to 

indicate deletions. At the March 27 meeting, the Board directed staff to 

make modifications to the proposed amendments. The modifications to 

the amendments are shown in double underline to indicate additions and 

double strikeout to indicate deletions. 

 The proposed new section 1962.1 and incorporated 2009 and subsequent 

model-year test procedure, presented to the Board on March 27, 2008, 

are shown without underline as permitted by California Code of 

Regulations, title 1, section 8. Modifications to the amendments are 

shown in single underline to indicate additions and single strikeout to 

indicate deletions.
PE R CURIAM. Affirmed. 

# Third D istrict Court of Ap peal

Sta te of F lorida Opinion filed February 28, 2024

. Not final until disposition of t imely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23 -10 72 Lower Tribunal No. 21 -90 53

________________ 

### Walter L . Wright , Appellant,
v s. 

### JPay LLC, et al. , Appellee s
.

A n Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami -D ade C ounty, Beatrice B utchko , J udge. Walter L

. Wright, i n proper person
. Colodny Fass, J ames G uanciale, a nd Matthew C. S carfone ( Sunrise) , for appellee JPay LLC

. Before FERNANDEZ , LI NDSEY and M ILLER, JJ

.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9531]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0511]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Current Good Manufacturing Practices 
and Related Regulations for Blood and Blood Components; and 
Requirements for Donor Testing, Donor Notification, and ``Lookback''

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Current Good Manufacturing 
Practices and Related Regulations for Blood and Blood Components; and 
Requirements for Donor Testing, Donor Notification, and ` Lookback' '' 
has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Information 
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, 
Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-7726, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85ece9e4abe8ecfff7e4e6edecc5e3e1e4abededf6abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e47424f004347545c4f4d46476e484a4f0046465d00494158">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 3, 2012, the Agency submitted a 
proposed collection of information entitled ``Current Good 
Manufacturing Practices and Related Regulations for Blood and Blood 
Components; and Requirements for Donor Testing, Donor Notification, and 
`Lookback' '' to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An 
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information 
collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0116. The approval 
expires on April 30, 2015. A copy of the supporting statement for this 
information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: April 16, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-9531 Filed 4-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
OMB No. 0581-0178

(Rev. 05/2017) Destroy previous editions.

The Secretary of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C. 20250

Dear Secretary:

I hereby accept the appointment to the position on the South Texas Onion Committee as set forth in the 

Selection Order. I agree to serve during the period for which I was appointed and until my successor has been 

selected and has qualified.

In accepting this appointment, I also agree to carry out assigned duties in administering the terms and 

provisions of the Marketing Order to the best of my ability.

Sincerely,

_______________________________________

Signature

_______________________________________

Address

_______________________________________

City, State, Zip Code

_______________________________________

Date
NUMBER 13-13-00119-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

MEZA SIERRA ENTERPRISES, INC. 

AND VALDEMAR MEZA, Appellants,

v.

KINGDOM FRESH PRODUCE, INC., Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 92nd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

ORDER

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This appeal was abated by this Court on August 8, 2013, due to the bankruptcy of 

one of the parties to this appeal. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 8. 

On March 6, 2015, Meza Sierra Enterprises, Inc. (“Meza Sierra”) filed a motion to reinstate 

this appeal on grounds that the Valdemar Meza’s bankruptcy had concluded. Meza 

Sierra attached a copy of the bankruptcy court’s order showing that Valdemar Meza’s 

bankruptcy had been discharged. 
2

Appellee, Kingdom Fresh Produce, Inc. (“Kingdom Fresh”), filed a response in 

opposition to the motion to reinstate. Kingdom Fresh asserts that Meza Sierra is not 

currently operating, will not resume operating, and its right to conduct business in Texas 

has been terminated for failure to pay franchise taxes. Kingdom Fresh further asserts 

that because Meza Sierra’s corporate privileges have been terminated, only its principal, 

Valdemar Meza, could be liable for the underlying judgment because Meza Sierra no 

longer exists. Kingdom Fresh argues that Valdemar Meza’s bankruptcy indicates that 

the judgment “has been discharged and is not enforceable against him.” “As a result, 

the resolution of the appeal does not possess any practical effect on the conflict between 

the parties” and the appeal “should not be used as a vehicle to vindicate Appellant’s view 

of the controversy or the applicable. Law.” Kingdom Fresh thus requests that the appeal 

be dismissed, or alternatively, that it not be reinstated until Meza Sierra is an “ongoing 

concern, authorized to do business in Texas.”

Kingdom Fresh’s arguments do not pertain to Valdemar Meza’s bankruptcy itself. 

Accordingly, we GRANT Meza Sierra’s motion to reinstate and we REINSTATE this 

appeal. See id. Our ruling is without prejudice to the arguments made by Kingdom 

Fresh, and Kingdom Fresh may, if desired, raise those issues pertaining to standing and 

jurisdiction, by separate motion supported by appropriate argument and authority.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

14th day of April, 2015.
Exhibit 32.1



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 NGP Capital Resources Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2014, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen K. Gardner, 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 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 9, 2014 |  | /s/ STEPHEN K. GARDNER               
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|                   |  | Stephen K. Gardner                   
|                   |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY>  U.S. DOLLARS
<EXCHANGE-RATE>  1
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                                1,798
<SECURITIES>                                          4,363
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                             700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      9,366
<PP&E>                                               43,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                       20,053
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       38,003
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 2,286
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                566
<OTHER-SE>                                           32,816
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         38,003
<SALES>                                               7,957
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     26,995
<CGS>                                                 2,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        21,090
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       4,042
<INCOME-TAX>                                          1,552
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   2,490
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          2,490
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .44