alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CHILDRESS v. STATE.

No. 26974.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 28, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was charged by complaint and information with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area with a prior conviction for a like offense alleged for enhancement of penalty. Upon a plea of guilty before the court, a jury being waived, she was convicted, and her punishment was assessed at a fine of $300.

The complaint and information appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

It is noted that the information charges appellant with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area, to which appellant pleaded guilty. The judgment, however, finds appellant guilty of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor and of a previous conviction for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area. The judgment is reformed so as to conform with the information and the plea of guilty thereto.

As reformed, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In connection with the accompanying amended Annual Report on Form 10-K of Aspire Japan, Inc., for the year ending January 31, 2010, I, Ken Osako, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Aspire Japan, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:
  1. Such yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending January 31, 2010, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2010, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aspire Japan, Inc.
  Dated: May 12, 2009
   Aspire Japan, Inc.
  By:
/s/ Ken Osako

Ken Osako

President, Chief Executive Officer,

Chief Financial Officer ,

Principal Accounting Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1319

PHILLIP SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNION COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00707-RJC-DCK)

Submitted: March 30, 2016 Decided: April 14, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kirk J. Angel, THE ANGEL LAW FIRM, PLLC, Concord, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Katherine T. Armstrong, William C. 

Robinson, ROBINSON, ELLIOTT & SMITH, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Smith appeals the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment to Smith’s former employer in this Americans 

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) action. Smith raises two issues

on appeal: (1) whether the district court improperly credited 

the employer’s evidence and failed to properly evaluate evidence 

offered by Smith regarding pre-offer medical inquiry under the 

ADA; and (2) whether the district court failed to view key 

evidence in the light most favorable to Smith in granting 

summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Smith v. Union Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. 

3:13-cv-00707-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. March 5, 2015) (stating reasons 

on the record at the hearing on March 4, 2015); see Myers v. 

Hose, 50 F.3d 278, 282 (4th Cir. 1995) (finding that a 

litigant’s medical conditions precluded him from being a bus 

driver in his ADA discrimination action). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1857 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1857

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                    For the relief of Bartosz Kumor.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR BARTOSZ KUMOR.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Bartosz Kumor shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Bartosz Kumor enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall 
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Bartosz Kumor, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Bartosz Kumor 
shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, 
privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1857

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

                    For the relief of Bartosz Kumor.
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1054. JAMES CHAMBERS v. PHYLLIS HARVEY AS GUARDIAN AND

CONSERVATOR OF ORA CHAMBERS.

Phyllis Harvey filed an action for quiet title, ejectment, and other relief against

James Chambers. On October 11, 2021, the trial court entered a final order granting

Harvey's requested relief. That same day, the court entered a separate order denying

Chambers's motion to vacate a previous ejectment order. Chambers moved to vacate

the final order, but on November 15, 2021, the trial court denied the motion to vacate.

On December 20, 2021, Chambers filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the

November 15 order. Chambers later amended his notice of appeal to indicate that he

also wished to appeal both October 11 orders, as well as a December 17, 2021 order

denying his motion for reconsideration. We, however, lack jurisdiction. 

A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order sought to

be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). “The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal

is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction upon an appellate court.” Perlman

v. Perlman, 318 Ga. App. 731, 739 (4) (734 SE2d 560) (2012) (punctuation omitted).

Further, the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not extend the time for filing

a notice of appeal, and the denial of a motion for reconsideration is not itself a

directly appealable judgment. See State v. White, 282 Ga. 859, 860 (1) (655 SE2d

575) (2008); Bell v. Cochran, 244 Ga. App. 510, 511 (536 SE2d 187) (2000).

Chambers filed his notice of appeal 59 days after the October 11 orders and 35 days

after the November 15 orders. Thus, the notice is untimely as to those orders. And

Chambers's amended notice of appeal is invalid asto the December 17 order denying

his motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for

April 12, 2022
lack of jurisdiction.

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.

04/12/2022
#### LOUISVILLE & JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH, a Corporation, Appellant, v. LONDON GUARANTEE & ACCIDENT COMPANY, Limited, et al., Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 11, 1955.

S. M. Russell ánd Herman E. Frick, Louisville, for appellant.

Boehl, Stopher, Kilgarriff, Graves & Deindoerfer and Harry L. Hargadon, Louisville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment denying appellant, Louisville & Jefferson County Board of Health, the right to recover a hospital bill of $528 from appellee, London Guarantee & Accident Company, Limited, and Harry L. Hargadon, John L, Bennett and Arnold J. Lemaire. The lower court entered a summary judgment dismissing the action as to appellees. We have lead the pleadings, the evidence and the briefs and we conclude the entry of the judgment rejecting appellant’s claim against appellees was proper.

The motion is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
#### COZBY v. CLIFTON et al.

No. 16300.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Feb. 19, 1954.

*198Morgan & Shropshire, and Cecil A. Morgan, Fort Worth,'for relator.

Cantey, Hanger, Johnson, Scarborough & Gooch, and Jack C. Wessler, Fort Worth, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding in the Court of Civil Appeals and is before this court upon the motion for leave to file the attached petition for mandamus, by which Grace Cozby, who was the plaintiff in the County Court at Law of Tarrant County, seeks to have Judge Drew S. Clifton compelled to enter a judgment upon a verdict returned by a jury in .said court on date of December 2, 1953.

It appears that the verdict of the jury was returned into open court on December 2, 1953, and because of certain statements made by the foreman of the jury to the Judge of the court he was of the opinion that misconduct had ocurred, and he therefore entered an order declaring a mistrial. On December 7j 1953, Mrs. Cozby filed a motion for judgment based upon the verdict -of the jury. ' The te'rm of' court ended on date of Januáry 2, 1954.

From the petition for mandamus,.which we examine in connection with determination of whether, leave to file the same should be granted, it is- noted that the relator states merely that she filed ' her aforesaid motion for judgment and a brief of authoritiés in the trial court and that the term of court ended' without any action thereon having been taken by the Judge of the" court. Nowhere in the petition is there any allegation' that any demand, written or oral, has been made upon the Judge to enter judgment upon the verdict of the jury. Neither is it alleged that the Judge had so conducted -himself that the making of such demand would have been a useless act.

We believe the question here posed is correctly settled by the case of Dozier v. Wray, Tex.Civ.App.Waco, 1949, 222 S.W.2d 178, and the authorities there cited, and that relator’s motion for leave to file her petition must be refused.' The writ of mandamus'will not issue to an inferior court to compel the performance of a duty where there has been no request . or demand therefor and no refusal oh -the part of the inferior court to act within the time he is required to do so. In the Dozier case there was a motion for judgment filed just as one was in this case and it was pointed out that the relator had not laid the predicate requisite to any right to relief by .the writ of mandamus because he had not made demand upon the court for the performance of the duty he desired the court to perform, followed by the refusal or neglect on the part of the court to act. It is true that in that case the term of court during which the trial judge had authority to act had not expired, and in the instant case the term of court expired January 2, 1954, and hence it would be impossible for Judge Clifton to enter a judgment for anyone upon a case tried before that time. This circumstance does not alter the .jurisdictional prerequisites to the. entertaining of the motion for it was not occasioned by the: trial court or the processes of Jaw free .from any fault on the part of the relator...

Motion denied::
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FUZZYSHARP TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

INTEL CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2014-1261

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 4:12-cv-04413-YGR, 

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

DAVID FINK, Fink & Johnson, Houston, TX, argued for 

plaintiff-appellant.

DAN L. BAGATELL, Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, AZ argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by JAMES 

F. VALENTINE, KENNETH J. HALPERN, Palo Alto, CA; 

CHRISTINA JORDAN MCCULLOUGH, Seattle, WA. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

March 9, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.1


Rule 13a-14(d) Certification





I, In-Young Chase, certify that:





1.           I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of MS Structured Asset Corp. on behalf of SATURNS Trust No. 2005-2;





2.           Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;





3.           Based on my knowledge,  and except as disclosed in the Compliance Certificate, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;





4.           I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the Compliance Certificate, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and





5.           The reports, together with the Compliance Certificate, disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trustee and the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Bank of America, National Association as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association and its officers and agents.







By: /s/In-Young ChaseName:        In-Young ChaseTitle:          Vice PresidentDate:          March 31, 2011
IV 

House Calendar No. 89 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1791 

[Report No. 112–282] 

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 101 South 

United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ‘‘Alto Lee Adams, 

Sr., United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2011 

Mr. ROONEY (for himself, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. MILLER of Florida, 

Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. NUGENT, Mr. WEBSTER, 

Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. POSEY, Ms. 

ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. DEUTCH, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. DIAZBALART, Mr. WEST, and Mr. RIVERA) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

NOVEMBER 14, 2011 

Additional sponsors: Mrs. ADAMS, Mr. ROSS of Florida, Ms. CASTOR of 

Florida, Mr. MICA, and Mr. SOUTHERLAND

NOVEMBER 14, 2011 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 1791 RH

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 101 South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, 

Florida, as the ‘‘Alto Lee Adams, Sr., United States 

Courthouse’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 1791 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States courthouse under construction at 

5 101 South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, 

6 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Alto Lee Adams, 

7 Sr., United States Courthouse’’. 

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

9 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

10 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

11 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

12 to be a reference to the ‘‘Alto Lee Adams, Sr., United 

13 States Courthouse’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

House Calendar No. 89 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1791 

[Report No. 112–282] 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse under 

Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse’’. 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ‘‘Alto Lee construction at 101 South United States Route 

NOVEMBER 14, 2011 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of

The State ofConnecticut and

Middletown Power LLC

)

)

)

)

)

Trading Agreement and Order No. 8215A

Modification No.3

Whereas, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Middletown Power

LLC ("Respondent") having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and

Order No. 8215A and all previous modification thereto, do now, by mutual agreement, further

modify said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows:

I. All references to May I, 2009 with respect to the authorization to use emissions

reduction credit trading and/or emission reduction credits and NOx allowances to

comply with the emissions limits of Subsections 22a-174-22(d)(l) through 22a-174-

22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies ("Regulations") are

hereby replaced with May 1,2010.

2. Any references to October Ist with respect to the date by which the Respondents shall

estimate and acquire Discrete Emission Reduction Credits ("DERCS") and/or

allowances for the non-ozone season shall now include October 1,2009.

3. Any references to May 31,2007 and May 31,2008 with respect to calculation and

retirement of non-ozone season DERCs shall now include May 31, 2009 and May 31,

2010.

4. All references to September I, 2008 with respect to the submission of Future

Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1,2009.

5. No later than May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading

Agreement and Order No. 8215A and/or its subsequent modifications, the Respondent

shall comply with the requirements of Sections 22a-174-22(d)(l) and 22a-174-

22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations.

6. All other terms and conditions of Trading Agreement and Order No. 82 I SA, as

modified, shall remain in effect.

( Printed on Recycled Paper)

79 Elm Street • Hartford. CT 06106 - 5127

http://www.CLgov/dep

An Equal Opporllllliry Employer
Middletown Power LLC 2 Trading Agreement and Order No. 8215A

Modification No.3

The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement

and Order without further notice.

Middletown Power LLC

Signature: __)y,<i'''''''''',l'----/-l-'fk~,-''i?c.L''''=-------- ,

Narne: _~::f)".",""",,=, ~"'A_;)~.-!..Il):o::::):o.£@¢~~Lor:..:t!:.:S'__ _

Date: J-H",,-D"I

Issued as a modification of a Trading Agreement and Order.

~c---=J...:.......-=--.:.~==­ g~r~~~sf)

Engineering and Enforcement Division

Bureau of Air Management

Date