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:

A14A1519. STATE OF GEORGIA v. DAVIS. 

In 1995, appellee Barry Davis was convicted of aggravated sodomy on a child.

In February 2013, Davis was pardoned by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles

(“the Board”). After Davis wasreleased from prison, he was arrested and indicted for

failing to comply with the requirements of the sex offender registration statute,

OCGA § 42-1-12. The State then sought to subpoena the Board’s records on Davis

for the purpose of showing the grand jury the Board’s lack of diligence in pardoning

Davis. The Board moved to quash the subpoena, and a hearing was held on February

24, 2014. Two days later, on February 26, 2014, the grand jury indicted Davis for

violating the sex offender registration statute. On March 20, 2014, the trial court filed

an order granting the Board’s motion on the ground that the Board’srecords were not

relevant to the proceedings before the grand jury. In this appeal from the trial court’s

grant of the motion to quash the subpoena, the Attorney General, representing a

Board member, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.

We must dismiss an appeal if the question presented has become moot. OCGA

§ 5-6-48 (b) (3); see also Pimper v. State of Ga., 274 Ga. 624, 626 (555 SE2d 459)

(2001) (an appeal becomes moot when it seeks to determine an issue which, if

resolved, “cannot have any practical effect on the underlying controversy, or when

such resolution will determine only abstract questions not arising upon existing facts

or rights”). Specifically, and asthis Court held in Froelich v. State, 210 Ga. App. 647,

649 (437 SE2d 358) (1993), an appeal from a trial court’sruling on a motion to quash

a subpoena to appear before a grand jury becomes moot when the grand jury issues

an indictment in the matter. Id. at 649.

December 03, 2014
The trial court noted that the Board’s documents were “not relevant” to the

inquiry before the grand jury, which was “to determine whether there is sufficient

evidence to indict” Davis for violating the sex offender registration law. But even

assuming that the Board’s documents on Davis’s aggravated sodomy case might be

relevant to the sex offender registration charge, Davis has now been indicted on that

charge, and the trial court quashed the subpoena only for purposes of the grand jury

proceedings. We are not authorized to give an advisory opinion on the validity of a

subpoena for the Board’s documentsfor purposes of the charge now pending against

Davis when the trial court explicitly declined to address that question. We therefore

DISMISS this appeal as MOOT. Froelich, 210 Ga. App. at 649.

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.

2

12/03/2014
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

In re : VINODH RAGHUBIR,

Petitioner

______________________

2020

- 128

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States

Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20

- cv

- 00388

- EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

Vinodh Raghubir currently has a case pending before

the United States Court of Federal Claims. He now petitions for a writ of prohibition, asking this court to “prohibit conduct pursuant to ‘the conspiracy to predetermine the outcome of judicial proceedings’ throughout p roceedings now involving the Federal Court of Claims.”

Like a writ of mandamus, a writ of prohibition is a drastic remedy that is available only when a petitioner has a clear and indisputable right to relief and no adequate alternative legal channels thr ough which to obtain that relief

. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Case: 20-128 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 06/18/2020IN RE : RAGHUBIR 2

Columbia , 542 U.S. 367, 380

– 81 (2004); In re Missouri , 664 F.2d 178, 180 (8th Cir. 1981). Mr. Raghubir has not demonstrated that an appeal from an eventual final judgment o f the Court of Federal Claims would be inadequate or that he has a clear and indisputable right to relief.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

The petition is denied.

June 18 , 2020

Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s24 Case: 20-128 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 06/18/2020
'( ( ( 

# '(1\7 (

( (

1 ( ( ( (
( (

# -~~~f-~_:___L__p -f--:-LitL

# vz~~**~** 

# £1**~: ft7**  rL

### ~ . 

# 7-
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Brigham Young Statue
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Mahonri Young

Materials
    Marble

Year
    1950

Location
      
National Statuary Hall

This statue of Brigham Young was given to the National Statuary Hall Collection by Utah in 1950.

Brigham Young was born in Whittingham, Vermont, on June 1, 1801. His family later moved to upstate New York, where he became, successively, a journeyman painter, glazier, and farmer. He sought a religion applicable to daily life and after two years of study he became a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He rapidly earned positions of leadership within the church, and in the 1840s Young was among those who established the city of Nauvoo on the Mississippi River. It became the headquarters of the church and was larger than the city of Chicago.

In 1844, upon the death of their leader, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young became president of the church. Within two years persecution drove the "Saints" to territory outside the boundaries of the United States. In 1847 he led a party of 148 to the Salt Lake Valley. Young, sometimes called a "modern Moses," successfully organized the emigration of 70,000 pioneers.

As the first governor of the Utah Territory, he encouraged farming, industry, thrift, the establishment of retail stores, cooperative irrigation, schools, universities, and theatres. Because the territory was so far from supplies, Young introduced other industries, including cotton and silk, to build self-sufficiency. Known as one of the world's great colonizers, Brigham Young established communities between Mexico and Canada before his death on August 29, 1877, in Salt Lake City, Utah. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**138 CA 11-01801**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ.

TONYA BRIGGS-DANIELS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

RICHARD A. MILLER AND WILLIAM J. WALTERS, DOING BUSINESS AS WW SERVICES, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES MORRIS, BUFFALO (JAMES E. MORRIS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
LAW OFFICES OF DESTIN SANTACROSE, BUFFALO (CHERYL A. KRZYWICKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Drury, J.), entered November 9, 2010 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment, granted the cross motion of defendants for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties and filed on February 6, 2012,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is dismissed without costs upon stipulation.
All concur except G ORSKI , J., who is not participating.

Entered: February 10, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
The First Continental Congress, 1774
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Allyn Cox

Materials
    Oil on Canvas

Location
      
U.S. Capitol Building
          Cox Corridors

Delegates from all thirteen colonies met in 1774 in Philadelphia to discuss responses to increased British oppression. This convention, the First Continental Congress, formally declared that colonists should have the same rights as Englishmen; they also agreed to form the Continental Association, which called for the suspension of trade with Great Britain. The mural depicts an oration by Patrick Henry in Carpenters' Hall.

**Left:** A colonist is shown making a tax payment. Taxation without representation was a major complaint against the royal government.

**Right:** A soldier blocks the path of a woman and child, symbolizing the armed occupation that incensed many colonists.

About the Cox Corridors Murals

The first floor of the U.S. Capitol's House wing is elaborately decorated with wall and ceiling murals by artist Allyn Cox. The central east-west corridor is referred to as the Great Experiment Hall because it chronicles in 16 murals the legislative milestones of three centuries, from the signing of the Mayflower Compact in 1629 to the enactment of women's suffrage in 1920. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION 

DOMESTIC ORIGIN TRACE-BACK REQUEST 

To: 

Date of request: 

The USDA, Specialty Crops Inspection Division, in accordance with AMS Master Solicitation for Commodity 

Procurements , is requesting the following item(s) be traced for domestic origin. The trace must include 

Exhibit 1 and show that the commodity and all major food components thereof are from crops solely grown and 

processed in the United States. The trace must include all supporting documentation substantiating domestic 

origin for the shipment(s) listed below. Provide a narrative or flow chart explaining the documentation 

provided. Documentation should include but is not limited to: grower’s receipts including location; purchase 

orders; growers lot numbers; production reports; inspection certificate; delivery reports; and, other 

documentation providing proof of origin. 

Failure to fulfill proof of Domestic Origin may result in the cancellation of your award and may affect your 

ability to do further business with USDA. 

Solicitation No 

Purchase Order No. 

Supplier 

Commodity 

Sales Order No. 

Item Nos & Destination 

Please provide these documentations to me by email no later than: 

Date of initial request: 

Date of follow up request: 

Date of final request: 

REMARKS: 

FINAL DISPOSITION 

Complete Incomplete Not Submitted 

Signature Date 

SC-392 (11-2020) USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation;(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Dated: January 26, 2011
    
    /s/ Robert J. Davis

Robert J. Davis, Chief Financial Officer
 20
# • 11/01/93 RCRA REV[S[ON CHECKL[ST 84 Toxicity Characteristic; Chlorofluorocarbon Refrigerants 56 FR 5910-5915 February 13, 1991 (RCRA Cluster I, HSWA Rule)

.Note: This Revision Checklist addresses an interim final rule which suspends the Toxicity.Characteristic (TC) rule (see 55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990, Revision Checklist 

### 74) for certainusedchlorofluorocarbon refrigerants which exhibit the toxicity characteristic andwhich are recycled. The exemption only applies. if the refrigerants are reclaimed for reuse. This interim final rule provides for a standard which isnarrower in scope·than would be imposed in the final TC rule. Thus, States are not required to mandate this narrower-in-scope standard

### 11, and the affectedcitation is designated 

### as optional. Section 3009 of RCRA, however, provides that States

### may impose ·requirements that are broader in scope or more stringent than those imposed under Federal regulations.

FEDERAL REQU[REMENT .FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION STATE ANALOG IS: MORE EQUIV- STR[NALENT GENT BROADER IN SCOPE

PART 261 • IDENTIF[CAT[ON AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS**~STE ~C**  173-303

SUBPART A - GENERAL



### t EXCLUSIONS usedchlorofluoro­ 

# • This rule is considered "narrower-in-scope" because it narrows the wastes which are regulation certain chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants as specifiedat 261.4(b)(12)_ carbon refrigerants from totaII y enclosed heat transfer equipment, provided the refrigera.nt is reclaimed for further 

# yse 261.4(bH12) 506 regulated, by exluding from X



# •

February 13, 1991 - Page 1 of 1
25288

#### State v. Spinney

Remanded
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________ ________________ No. 14

- 11829

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:10

- cv - 00428

- RH

- CAS

MICHAEL MCDONALD, Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida

________________________ ( January 19, 2016 ) Case: 14-11829 Date Filed: 01/19/2016 Page: 1 of 22 Before HULL , and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and ROYAL , * District Jud ge . PER CURIAM: Michael McDonald appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions for (1) sexual battery of a child less than 12 years of age and (2) lewd and lascivious molestation. On appeal, McDonald argues that his Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation and a fair trial were violated when the trial court permitted the alleged victim , a child who was five years old at the time of trial, to testify outside of his prese nce via closed

- circuit television pursuant to a procedure established by Florida s tatute , Fla. Stat. § 92.54

. Upon a thorough review of the briefs and record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm based on the well

- reasoned report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and the order of the district court entered on March 31, 2014

. AFFIRMED.

* Honorable C. Ashley Royal , United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

Case: 14-11829 Date Filed: 01/19/2016 Page: 2 of 2
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL MANAGER

          Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
          ss.1350)

          Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
          ss.1350), the undersigned,  Francine M. Tomlinson, Principal Financial
          Manager of  Nutrition  Management  Services  Company,  a  Pennsylvania
          corporation  (the "Company"),  does hereby certify,  to her knowledge,
          that:

          The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005
          of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of
          section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and
          the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

                                             /s/ Francine Tomlinson
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Francine M. Tomlinson
                                             Principal Financial Manager

          May 23, 2005
```
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply627Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Kate Holder (n... (not verified)PermalinkJuly 23, 2019 - 3:42pmWell done, Franklin, and what a proud legacy!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
September 19, 1996

18125

#### State v. Fu

Affirmed
# C_2012326EN.01039301.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/391

---

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

TITLE II

FREEDOMS

FREEDOMS

Article 18

Right to asylum

The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Treaties’).

---