alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

TO THE 226TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on April 15, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

Oscar Gomez, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-15-00084-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2013CR11049

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on June 15, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4550 

To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exclude law firms and 

licensed attorneys who are engaged in activities related to legal proceedings from the definition of a debt collector, to amend the Consumer 

Financial Protection Act of 2010 to prevent the Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection from exercising supervisory or enforcement authority 

with respect to attorneys when undertaking certain actions related to 

legal proceedings, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 5, 2017 

Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas (for himself and Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exclude 

law firms and licensed attorneys who are engaged in 

activities related to legal proceedings from the definition 

of a debt collector, to amend the Consumer Financial 

Protection Act of 2010 to prevent the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection from exercising supervisory 

or enforcement authority with respect to attorneys when 

undertaking certain actions related to legal proceedings, 

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, 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4550 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Practice of Law Tech3 nical Clarification Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF LAW FIRMS AND LAWYERS FROM 

5 THE DEFINITION OF DEBT COLLECTOR WHEN 

6 ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW. 

7 Section 803(6) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

8 Act (15 U.S.C. 1692a(6)) is amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as sub10 paragraph (G); and 

11 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the fol12 lowing: 

13 ‘‘(F) any law firm or licensed attorney, to 

14 the extent that such firm or attorney is— 

15 ‘‘(i) serving, filing, or conveying for16 mal legal pleadings, discovery requests, or 

17 other documents pursuant to the applicable 

18 rules of civil procedure; or 

19 ‘‘(ii) communicating in connection 

20 with a legal action to collect a debt on be21 half of a client in, or at the direction of, 

22 a court of law (including in depositions or 

23 settlement conferences) or in the enforce24 ment of a judgment; and’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4550 IH

1 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO BUREAU AUTHORITY WITH RE2 SPECT TO PRACTICE OF LAW. 

3 Section 1027(e)(2)(B) of the Consumer Financial 

4 Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5517(e)(2)(B)) is 

5 amended by striking the period at the end and inserting 

6 ‘‘, unless such financial product or service is provided by 

7 a licensed attorney who is not a debt collector as described 

8 under section 803(6)(F) of the Fair Debt Collection Prac9 tices Act.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
#### The State, ex rel. Greisiger et al., Appellants, *v.*Grand Rapids Board of Edn. et al., Appellees.

(No. 32041

Decided February 15, 1950.)

*Mr. Hayden C. Covington*and *Mr. Victor F. Schmidt,*for appellants.

*Messrs. Bowman, Hanna & Middleton*and *Mr. Floyd A. Goiler,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taft, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4514 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4514

    To prohibit deductions for settlements subject to nondisclosure 
 agreements paid in connection with sexual harassment or sexual abuse, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2017

Mrs. Comstock introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit deductions for settlements subject to nondisclosure 
 agreements paid in connection with sexual harassment or sexual abuse, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Tax Subsidies for Sexual 
Abusers and Harassers Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR SETTLEMENTS SUBJECT TO NONDISCLOSURE 
              AGREEMENTS PAID IN CONNECTION WITH SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR 
              SEXUAL ABUSE.

    (a) Denial of Deduction.--Section 162 is amended by redesignating 
subsection (q) as subsection (r) and by inserting after subsection (p) 
the following new subsection:
    ``(q) Payments Related to Sexual Harassment and Sexual Abuse.--No 
deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for any settlement or 
payment related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if such settlement 
or payment is subject to a nondisclosure agreement or attorney's fees 
related to such a settlement or payment.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
SERVED: MAY 22, 2012 

..... ,.' . ..,"(,. ~EI!T or : l)i-\H 11'111 - \ r 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION"'/-,:\ISPORTATION . ··· ... ·., · .·c-T QrJrQ f1TI(\! iC' OFFICEOFHEARINGS \.· ... r\i:::l :l·tnn 1.n'h1 

WASHINGTON, DC 

·;n n -------------i',UlL 

IN THE MATTER OF 

PATHFINDER AVIATION, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0028 

HEARING NOTICE 

2Ll 1: )ll 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on September 18 and 19, 2012, at the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, 

222 W. 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99513. 

Hearings will commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:00p.m. each day. The parties 

should vacate the courthouse on or before 5:00 p.m. each day. Settled cases will not be 

removed from the docket until the Judge receives the proper pleading(s). Pleadings 

may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier o tal s 

Attachment - Service List 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

-·'f\·· 

1 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Michael W. Fell, President 

Pathfinder Aviation, Inc. 

P.O. Box 375 

Homer, AK 99603 

TEL: 907~299-2800 

FAX: 907-299-2801 

ONE COPY 

Glenn H. Brown, Complainant's Counsel 

Senior Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Alaskan Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 W. ih Avenue #14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5271 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

The Honorable Richard 9. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 __ ..., 

. U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202;.366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0028 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Opinion issued November 22, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-21-00272-CV

———————————

IN RE JOYCE COLUMBUS, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Joyce Columbus, challenges the trial court’s order denying relator’s 

motion for partial summary judgment.1

We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8. Any pending motions are 

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Farris.

1 The underlying case is Bishop Kindle v. Joyce Columbus, Trustee of the WNB 

Family Trust, Joe G. Bax, and Patrice Michel Bax, cause number 035118, pending 

in the 12th District Court of Grimes County, Texas, the Honorable David Moorman 

presiding.
TS-11KK4D Processing and Use Addendum

Redacted
#### Chester F. HIBBS, Petitioner, v. Robert R. RAINES, Warden, The Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-12730.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 30, 1959.

*673Chester F. Hibbs, McAlester, petitioner, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

This is a petition by Chester F. Hibbs, whereby he seeks his release from the State Penitentiary by writ of habeas corpus. The records indicate that petitioner was convicted of the crime of first degree burglary, after former convictions of felonies, and sentenced to serve 99 years.

The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss this proceeding, for the reason that the same presents upon its face no matters of merit and nothing which has not already been adjudicated against petitioner by this Court.

The records show that this petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on January 12, 1948, and the matters set out therein were treated at length and the writ denied. Ex parte Hibbs, 86 Okl.Cr. 113, 190 P.2d 156, certiorari denied by the Supreme Court of the United States October 11, 1948, 335 U.S. 835, 69 S.Ct. 25, 93 L.Ed. 387; that on December 17, 1951 petitioner again filed petition for writ of ha-beas corpus in this Court, and the Court entered an order refusing to take jurisdiction of the matter. Thereafter and on October 30, 1957 petitioner again filed pe*674tition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court, and the matters were again fully-treated, and the writ denied. Ex parte Hibbs, Okl.Cr., 322 P.2d 654.

The rule of this Court is that where an application for writ of habeas corpus has been denied, this Court will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for a writ based on the same grounds and the same facts, or any other grounds or facts existing when the first application was made, whether presented then or not. Ex parte Berrie, 75 Okl.Cr. 115, 129 P.2d 88; Ex parte Gray, 74 Okl.Cr. 200, 124 P.2d 430; Ex parte Hinley, 84 Okl.Cr. 437, 183 P.2d 602; Ex parte O’Hara, 93 Okl.Cr. 186, 226 P.2d 327; Ex parte Tidwell, Okl.Cr., 317 P.2d 1119.

For the reasons above stated, the motion of the Attorney General is sustained, and the cause is dismissed.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.
#### Robert FARMER, Petitioner, v. Robert R. RAINES, Respondent.

No. A-13061.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 20, 1961.

Robert Farmer, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Afty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BUSSEY, Judge.

Petitioner, Robert Farmer is currently imprisoned in the State Penitentiary at McAlester by virtue of a judgment and sentence rendered in the District Court of Grady County on December 5, I960, wherein he was charged by information with the crime of forgery in the second' degree, and upon his plea of guilty to said charge petitioner received a sentence of four years in the State Penitentiary.

Petitioner contends that by reason of the failure of the court appointed counsel to appeal from said judgment of conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeals that his' Constitutional rights were violated.

 The minutes of the trial court reflect that on November, 23, 1961, petitioner entered a plea of hot guilty and requested that the court appoint an attorney to represent him and that thereafter on December 5, 1961, petitioner appeáred in open court with court appointed counsel Wilson Smithen, withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to the State Penitentiary for a term of 4 years, The petitioner do'es not allege that he ever requested that an appeal be perfected, nor does he assert that the court appointed attorney was incompetent. It is' our considered opinion that the petitioner' has failed to allege sufficient facts to esta’b- ’ lish his right to the relief requested. We' have carefully considered the information', minutes, judgment and sentence attached to: the petition- and find that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter, of the per-' *392son, and jurisdiction to pronounce the particular sentence imposed. Where it affirmatively appears that judgment and sentence is valid because the trial court has jurisdiction of the subject matter, person of the petitioner,' and authority under law to render judgment and sentence imposed and that the trial court did not deny petitioner his fundamental rights, habeas corpus will be denied. In re Eidenmueller, Okl.Cr., 341 P.2d 920. This being true the writ is hereby denied.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
# C_2013313EN.01001502.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-142/08) (1)

1

(Languages - Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators and assistants - Full publication in three official languages - Information concerning the notices of open competitions - Publication in all official languages - Language of the tests - Choice of second language from three official languages)

2013/C 313/26

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: F. Díez Moreno, and subsequently by: N. Díaz Abad and J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, abogados del Estado)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to constitute a reserve list of Administrators (AD8) and Principal Administrators (AD11) in the field of fraud prevention and Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/45/08 to constitute a reserve list of Assistants (AST4) in the field of fraud prevention (OJ 2008 C16A, pp. 1 and 16 respectively) on the ground that they were published in French, English and German only.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to constitute a reserve list of Administrators (AD8) and Principal Administrators (AD11) in the field of fraud prevention and EPSO/AST/45/08 to constitute a reserve list of Assistants (AST4) in the same field, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union on 23 January 2008; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to constitute a reserve list of Administrators (AD8) and Principal Administrators (AD11) in the field of fraud prevention and EPSO/AST/45/08 to constitute a reserve list of Assistants (AST4) in the same field, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union on 23 January 2008;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6884

CURTIS J. BROWN, SR., Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-97-2199-2-DCN) Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 28, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis J. Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).*We have given Brown the benefit of the ruling in Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988), in determining the date on which he filed his materials with the district court. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Curtis J. Brown, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to appoint counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 27, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on May 24, 2005. * Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
2005 Compensation Program for Outside Directors.



 EXHIBIT 10.65 
  
 

 
  
 2005 Compensation Program for
Outside Directors 
  

					
	 Annual Board Retainer:
	  	$25,000	  	 
	 Committee Chairs:
	  	$15,000/$30,000 for Audit Committee Chair	  	 
	 Committee Membership:
	  	$5,000	  	 
	 Re-election RSU Grant:
	  	6,000 RSUs (vesting 2,000 each year beginning at 1st
anniversary of re-election)	  	 
	 Annual RSU Grant:
 (to all outside directors at each annual meeting*)
	  	2,000 RSUs (vesting in full one year from grant date)	  	 



	*	For so long as a director has options vesting pursuant to a grant made under the previous director compensation plan (i.e. program which provided a grant of 48,000 options upon
election, vesting 16,000 at each subsequent annual meeting), he will not be entitled to the Annual RSU Grant. 

  
 All cash payments shall be based on service for a full year; pro rata payment shall be made for service of less than one year. Payment shall be quarterly and may be
deferred. 
  
 Equity awards shall be granted effective at the corresponding Annual
Meeting of Shareholders. 
  
 As approved by the Compensation
Committee February 3, 2005
1
2
3
4
5
6
================================================================================


                                  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 Tari Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the  period  ended June 30,  2006 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the
capacities and on the dates indicated  below,  hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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.



Date:  March 13, 2007

/s/ Theodore Tsagkaris

------------------------------
Theodore Tsagkaris
President, C.E.O. and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 D0 49 0 . EMMETT LENOI R v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 0 4

, Em

m et t L en o i r was co n v i ct ed o f ag g rav at ed b at t ery , s ex u al b at t ery , fal s e i m p ri s o n m en t

, cri m i n al d am ag e t o p r o p e r t y i n th e s eco n d deg ree, cru el t y to

ch i l d ren i n t h e s eco n d d eg ree, an d i n t erferen ce wi th a 9 11 cal l

, an d h e was s en t en ced

t o 3 5 y ears i n p ri s o n. W e rev ers ed th e cri m i n al d am ag e t o p ro p ert y co n v i ct i o n b ut

affi rm ed Len o i r’ s o t h er co n vi ct i o n s o n ap p eal

. See Len o i r v. St a t e , 3 2 2 Ga. Ap p

. 5 8 3

(7 4 5 SE2 d 8 24 ) (2 0 1 3 ). In M ay 2 01 5

, Len oi r m o v ed to vacat e h i s sen t en ce, arg u i n g

t h e ch arg es s h o u l d h av e m erg ed

. Th e t ri al co urt d en i ed t he m ot i o n, an d Len o i r fi l ed

t h i s a p p l i c at i o n fo r di s cret io n ary ap p eal t o ch al len g e t h e co u rt ’ s ru l i n g

. W e l ack

ju ri s d i ct i o n

. An ap peal m ay l i e fro m

an o rd er d en y i n g a m o t i on t o co rrect a v o i d s en t en ce

i f t h e d efen d an t rai s es a co lo rab l e cl ai m t h at t h e s en t en ce i s , i n fact

, v o i d o r i l l eg al

. See H a rp er v. S t a t e , 2 8 6 Ga. 2 1 6 n .1 (6 8 6 SE2 d 7 8 6 ) (2 0 0 9); Bu r g v. St a t e , 2 9 7 Ga.

Ap p

. 1 1 8

, 1 1 9 (6 76 SE2 d 4 6 5 ) ( 20 0 9 ). Len oi r’ s m erg er arg u m en t

, h o wev er, i s a

ch al l en g e t o hi s co nv i ct i o n s, n ot t o h i s s en t en ce. S eeW i l l i a ms v. S t a te , 2 8 7 Ga. 1 9 2

(6 9 5 SE2 d 2 4 4 ) (2 01 0). Becau s e Len o i r h as no t rai s ed a v al i d vo i d -s en t en ce cl ai m ,

we l ack ju ri sd ict i o n t o co n si d er h is ap pl i cat io n

. See Ro b er t s v. S t a t e , 2 8 6 Ga. 5 3 2

(6 9 0 SE2 d 1 5 0) (2 0 10 ); Ha r per , s up ra. Acco rd i n g l y , t h i s a p p l i cat i o n i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED. July 15, 2015C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 07/15/2015