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:

A22A0514. EDGERRIN TYREE JAMES v. CARLOS NEAL et al.

Carlos Neal and Tony Wyzzard (“the plaintiffs”) filed suit against Edgerrin

Tyree James seeking to hold him personally liable for a judgment. The trial court

granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. James filed a motion to open

default under OCGA § 9-11-55 and to have the judgmentset aside. On July 13, 2021,

the trial court denied the motion, finding that, because judgment had been entered,

James was not entitled to open default. To the extent James sought to set aside the

judgment under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d), the trial court denied the motion. James appeals

from this ruling. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

In a related appeal filed by James, which we dismissed as moot, James sought

to appeal the denial of his motion for supersedeas bond. Case No. A22A0309,

(dismissed Oct. 6, 2021). At that time, the trial court had not yet transmitted James’s

appeal from the grant of the default judgment. As we instructed therein, James was

not entitled to open default under OCGA § 9-11-55 (b). Construing his motion

according to its substance rather than its nomenclature, James sought to have the

default judgment set aside. See Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, 286 Ga. 589, 590 (690 SE2d

397) (2010) (in pleadings, substance controls over nomenclature). An appeal from an

order denying a motion to set aside under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) must be taken by

application for discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8); Jim Ellis Atlanta,

Inc. v. Adamson, 283 Ga. App. 116 (640 SE2d 688) (2006). “Compliance with the

discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human

December 16, 2021
Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). James’s failure to follow

the required appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which

is hereby DISMISSED. The plaintiffs in this case have filed a motion for attorney

fees, which is DENIED.

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.

12/16/2021
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
    Homecommentreply2386Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Jose N Gutierrez  (not verified)PermalinkJanuary 15, 2021 - 10:04pmYour work and dedication are really appreciated. Your passion for caring for the Capital and Grounds is remarkable and that’s what inspired me to apply to join AOC team. I hope to have the opportunity to join you soon! I would love to be part of this great group of men and women.
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
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

     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,  Joseph V. Roberts,  Chief Executive Officer of
     Nutrition  Management  Services  Company,  a Pennsylvania  corporation (the
     "Company"), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

     The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  December 31, 2004
     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/ Joseph V. Roberts
                                        ---------------------
                                        Joseph V. Roberts
                                        Chief Executive Officer

     February 17, 2005
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7133

DAVID ALAN LEARY, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1657-AM) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: October 23, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Alan Leary, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We note that in Beck v. Alabama , 447 U.S. 625, 638 n.14 (1980), the Supreme Court declined to decide whether due process requires lesser included instructions in non-capital state trials. Thus, Leary cannot meet the requirements of § 2254(d)(1). 2 PER CURIAM: David Alan Leary, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. * See Leary v. Garraghty, No. CA-00-1657-AM (E.D. Va. June 8, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7098

DOUGLAS R. VAUGHN, II,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NURSE TERRY, Intake Nurse; NURSE ALVIN, Intake Nurse; NURSE DIANE 

ANTHONY, Head Nurse; NURSE CHELTON, Intake Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, Medical Staff/Nurses,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00565-LMB-IDD)

Submitted: February 28, 2022 Decided: March 23, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Douglas R. Vaughn, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Fitzjames Quirk, SANDS 

ANDERSON, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Douglas R. Vaughn II appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Vaughn v. Nurse Terry, 

No. 1:19-cv-00565-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. June 21, 2021). 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
Agricultural 

Marketing 

Service 

Science and 

Technology 

Seed Regulatory and Testing Division

801 Summit Crossing Place

Gastonia, NC 28054

S&T 1005C Appendix 

June 2020

Page 1 of 1

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income 

is derived from any public assistance program (not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, 

Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer." (Updated July 18, 2005)

USDA Accredited Field Inspection Program (AFIP)

Specified Program Requirements - Appendix C

1 Purpose

This document sets forth the specified program requirements of the USDA Accredited Field Inspection 

Program (AFIP). It also provides the requirements for the objective evaluation of a program submitted 

for accreditation and monitored by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Science and Technology 

(S&T), Seed Regulatory and Testing Division (SRTD). 

The specified program requirements of the USDA AFIP must be met through an approved USDA Process 

Verified Program. The requirements of the USDA Process Verified Program are defined in S&T 1001 

Procedure, Process Verified Program. The USDA Process Verified Program ensures that the 

requirements of the USA AFIP are supported by a documented quality management system. 

The USDA AFIP is a voluntary, user-fee service available to field inspecting entities or individuals. 

Accredited field inspectors, as listed on the Official Listing of Accredited USDA Process Verified 

Programs for Seed, may represent themselves as a USDA Process Verified, USDA Accredited Field 

Inspector.

2 Scope

The USDA AFIP applies to field inspectors seeking accreditation under this Program. 

3 Specified Program Requirements

3.1 Accredited field inspectors must inspect fields in accordance with US OECD Seed Schemes 

Procedures Guide if the seed is to qualify for OECD shipment.

3.2 A portion of the fields entered for official certification for OECD shall be check-inspected by 

official field inspectors. That portion shall be at least 5 percent.

3.3 Accredited field inspectors are audited to determine expertise and implementation during actual 

field inspections.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLA VAN PELT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF NEVADA, EX REL.

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-15906

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00061-HDMVPC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Howard D. McKibben, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 9, 2016** 

San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

FILED

FEB 11 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Plaintiff Carla Van Pelt (“Van Pelt”) appeals the summary judgment grant to

defendant State of Nevada ex rel. Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) on her Title

VII claim of disparate treatment gender discrimination. We affirm.

A plaintiff alleging disparate treatment under Title VII must first establish a

prima facie case of discrimination. Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S.

248, 252-53 (1981). A prima facie case is established for plaintiffs who can “show

that: (1) they belonged to a protected class; (2) they were qualified for their jobs; (3) 

they were subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated

employees not in their protected class received more favorable treatment.” Moran v.

Selig, 447 F.3d 748, 753 (9th Cir. 2006). Van Pelt was terminated for chronically

being late to work and/or leaving early, and then falsifying logbooks and timesheets

to show she had worked longer hours than she actually did.

The district court properly found that Van Pelt failed to carry her burden at the

fourth prong because she failed to identify any male employees who committed

similar transgressions but were not fired. See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349

F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2003) (no inference of discrimination where employees not

similarly situated and the type and severity of alleged offense dissimilar); see also

Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., 615 F.3d 1151, 1156-58 (9th Cir. 2010). 

2
Van Pelt waiver her argument that she established disparate treatment with

direct evidence of discrimination, because she failed to present that argument to the

district court. See Walsh v. Nev. Dep’t of Human Res., 471 F.3d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir.

2006) (“Issues not presented to a district court generally cannot be heard on appeal.”). 

Although Van Pelt survived summary judgment on her Title VII retaliation claim, she

stipulated to dismiss this claim with prejudice prior to trial, along with “any other First

Amendment claim that can be read as asserted” in her complaint, and “any claim of

hostile work environment/sexual harassment.” Accordingly, no other claims

mentioned in her opening brief are properly before us. 

AFFIRMED.

3
Order entered February 7, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01162-CR

JOHANAN JOHN FOLSOM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-58786-P

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On January 8, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding whether court 

reporter Yolanda Atkins could produce her portion of the reporter’s record. We ADOPT the 

findings that: (1) Ms. Atkins testified she recorded the first half of the suppression hearing; 

(2) her stenographic equipment was stolen from her vehicle and the transcription is irretrievably 

lost; (3) appellant is not a fault for the loss of the record; and (4) the parties cannot agree on a 

substituted record.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID W. EVANS 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32



          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
            Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), Dorrit J. Bern, Chairman of
the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer and Eric M. Specter, Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Charming Shoppes, Inc. (the
"Company"), each certifies with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on
Form 10-K for the period ended January 29, 2005 (the "Report") that, to the best
of her/his knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with 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.



Dated:   April 14, 2005

                                           /S/ Dorrit J. Bern
                                           ------------------
                                           Dorrit J. Bern
                                           Chairman of the Board
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated:   April 14, 2005

                                           /S/ Eric M. Specter
                                           -------------------
                                           Eric M. Specter
                                           Executive Vice President
                                           Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1556 

To make daylight savings time permanent, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2019 

Mr. BUCHANAN (for himself and Mr. STEUBE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To make daylight savings time permanent, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sunshine Protection 

5 Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MAKING DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME PERMANENT. 

7 (a) REPEAL OF TEMPORARY PERIOD FOR DAYLIGHT

8 SAVINGS TIME.—Section 3 of the Uniform Time Act of 

9 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a) is hereby repealed. 

10 (b) ADVANCEMENT OF STANDARD TIME.— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1556 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The second sentence of sub2 section (a) of section 1 of the Act of March 19, 

3 1918 (commonly known as the ‘‘Calder Act’’) (15 

4 U.S.C. 261), is amended— 

5 (A) by striking ‘‘4 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘3 

6 hours’’; 

7 (B) by striking ‘‘5 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘4 

8 hours’’; 

9 (C) by striking ‘‘6 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘5 

10 hours’’; 

11 (D) by striking ‘‘7 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘6 

12 hours’’; 

13 (E) by striking ‘‘8 hours’’ and inserting 

14 ‘‘by 7 hours’’; 

15 (F) by striking ‘‘9 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘8 

16 hours’’; 

17 (G) by striking ‘‘10 hours;’’ and inserting 

18 ‘‘9 hours;’’; 

19 (H) by striking ‘‘11 hours’’ and inserting 

20 ‘‘10 hours’’; and 

21 (I) by striking ‘‘10 hours.’’ and inserting 

22 ‘‘11 hours.’’. 

23 (2) STATE EXEMPTION.—Such section is fur24 ther amended by— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1556 IH

1 (A) redesignating subsection (b) as sub2 section (c); and 

3 (B) inserting after subsection (a) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(b) STANDARD TIME FOR CERTAIN STATES AND

6 AREAS.—The standard time for a State that has exempted 

7 itself from the provisions of section 3(a) of the Uniform 

8 Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a(a)), as in effect on 

9 the day before the date of the enactment of the Sunshine 

10 Protection Act of 2019, pursuant to such section or an 

11 area of a State that has exempted such area from such 

12 provisions pursuant to such section shall be, as such State 

13 considers appropriate— 

14 ‘‘(1) the standard time for such State or area, 

15 as the case may be, pursuant to subsection (a) of 

16 this section; or 

17 ‘‘(2) the standard time for such State or area, 

18 as the case may be, pursuant to subsection (a) of 

19 this section as it was in effect on the day before the 

20 date of the enactment of the Sunshine Protection 

21 Act of 2019.’’. 

22 (3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Such section 

23 is further amended, in the second sentence, by strik24 ing ‘‘Except as provided in section 3(a) of the Uni25 form Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a(a)), the’’ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 1556 IH

1 and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in subsection 

2 (b),’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 92 

To provide that rates of pay for Members of Congress shall not be adjusted 

under section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 

in the year following any fiscal year in which outlays of the United 

States exceeded receipts of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2015 

Mr. BUCHANAN (for himself, Mrs. BLACK, and Mr. YOHO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide that rates of pay for Members of Congress shall 

not be adjusted under section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 in the year following 

any fiscal year in which outlays of the United States 

exceeded receipts of the United States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 92 IH

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE LEGISLATIVE REORGA2 NIZATION ACT OF 1946. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 601(a)(2) of the Legisla4 tive Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501(2)) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(C) An adjustment in rates of pay may be made 

7 under this paragraph in a year only if the aggregate out8 lays of the United States during the last completed fiscal 

9 year did not exceed the aggregate receipts of the United 

10 States during such fiscal year, as determined by the Con11 gressional Budget Office.’’. 

12 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 601(a)(2)(A) 

13 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A)) is amended by striking 

14 ‘‘Subject to subparagraph (B),’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to 

15 subparagraphs (B) and (C),’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2016202EN.01018801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/188 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/188

---

Article 324

Regular meetings between the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall be convened, on the initiative of the Commission, under the budgetary procedures referred to in this Title. The Presidents shall take all the necessary steps to promote consultation and the reconciliation of the positions of the institutions over which they preside in order to facilitate the implementation of this Title.

---