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

In The Supreme Court 

The State, Petitioner, 

v. 

Richard Lewis, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2013-001571 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal from Laurens County 

The Honorable Frank R. Addy, Jr., Circuit Court Judge 

Opinion No. 27511 

Heard March 4, 2015 – Filed March 25, 2015 

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED 

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson and Senior Assistant 

Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, both of 

Columbia, for Petitioner. 

C. Rauch Wise, of Greenwood, for Respondent. 
PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' 

decision in State v. Lewis, 403 S.C. 345, 743 S.E.2d 124 (Ct. App. 2013). We now 

dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N SUPREME COURT
JOHN V. NEWTON and BARRY NEWTON, Plaintiffs

- Appellants, SC: 150367
v COA: 315556 Macomb PC: 2011

- 203001

- CZ REBA SILVIO, GASPARE SILVIO, WENDY NIENHAUS, and JANICE BLACKLEDGE, Defendants

- Appellees. __________________________________________/
Statement of Justice Viviano Denying Plaintiffs
- Appellants’ Motion to Disqualify November 4, 2014
V IVIANO , J. On November 4, 2014, appellants filed to a motion to disqualify me from this case. In their motio n, appellants state that while I was serving as Chief Judge in Macomb County, “all Macomb County Probate Judges eventually recused and/or deferred from taking action in this matter and the matter was referred to the state court administrator’s office for t he assignment of an out

- county [sic] Judge to act in the Macomb County Probate Court.” In their Application for Leave to Appeal and appellate brief to the Court of Appeals, appellants further explain that after Macomb Probate Judges O’Sullivan and George recused themselves from this case because of prior dealings with one of the witnesses, “both counsel of record were then advised by the then2 Chief Judge of the Macomb County Probate Court that the State Court Administrator’s Office would be reassigning a n ew judge.” The only document in the record supporting my involvement is limited to my signature, in my capacity as Chief Judge, approving the requested reassignment. This is in keeping with my very vague recollection of this case that I had no involvemen t beyond operating in my administrative capacity as Chief Judge to facilitate reassignment in light of Judge O’Sullivan’s and Judge George’s recusals. Further, appellants have failed to articulate any grounds under MCR 2.003(C) on which to justify my recu sal. Accordingly, I see no reason to recuse myself from this case and would deny the motion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACOACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00454-ADA

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY DISCOVERY HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is set for

DISCOVERY HEARING by Zoomoom on November 04, 2021 at 01:00 PM.

set

IT 3rd day of November, 2021.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 105 Filed 11/03/21 Page 1 of 1
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE>                        5          
<CIK>                            0001052971
<NAME>                           IHLLC
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000      
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS     
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                               85,520
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        64,395
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                         254,343
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    408,513
<PP&E>                                              122,721
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      991,080
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               439,367
<BONDS>                                             200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                           20,279
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        991,080
<SALES>                                           1,217,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,217,555
<CGS>                                             1,099,291
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1,289,761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   52,155
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (116,757)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          3,250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (116,462)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (116,462)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of the United States Trade Representative

# AGENCY:

Office of the United States Trade Representative.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Industry Sector Advisory Committee on Small and Minority business (ISAC-14) will hold an open meeting on November 13, 2000 from 9:15 a.m. to 3 p.m.

# DATES:

The meeting is scheduled for November 13, 2000, unless otherwise notified

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Department of Commerce, Room 4830, located at 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, unless otherwise notified.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Millie Sjoberg, Department of Commerce, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-4792 or Dominic Bianchi, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395-6120.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

ISAC-14 will hold an open meeting on November 13, 2000 from 9:15 a.m. to 3 p.m. Agenda topics to be addressed will be:

1. A briefing on issues regarding infrastructure security;

2. A briefing on new Carousel Legislation;

3. A briefing on the Export Finance Matchmaker program;

4. A briefing on E-Commerce as it relates to the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas; and

5. Committee business.

Dominic Bianchi,

Acting Assistant United States Trade Representative for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison.

[FR Doc. 00-27457  Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TODD ASTILLERO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 32 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TODD ASTILLERO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 33 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of July, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
**Exhibit
        32.1**
  **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.**
  In
        connection with the Annual Report of GSV, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
        for the period ending December 31, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Gilad Gat, Chief
        Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and President of the Company,
        certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906
        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.
 
 Date:
        March 25, 2008
  By:
              /s/ Gilad
                GatGilad
                GatChief
                  Executive Officer and
                Chief Financial
                  Officer
Lexter Kossie#700661

William McConnell Unit

3001 South Emily Drive

,Beeville, Texas 78102

April 26, 2015

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. BOX 12308, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

RE: WR NOs. 10,978-01 thru 10,978-16

Tr.Ct.NOs. 679887-A thru 679887-K

185th District Court - Harris County

ti)fl% ~(*\(n%03,vHti&po-¥t

courtofcmm&iikppm

APR 29 2015

AteWcosfcCterk

Dear Clerk:

Recently I have been cited for abuse of the writ. In

order for me to show that the claims I intend to raise in my

subsequent writ are not barred by Sec 4 I am requesting the

docket sheet of all the writs mentioned above with a list of

all of the claims presented in each of those application. With

out a list of all of the claims I cannot show that the claims

I intend to raise have not been raised before in those prior

applications.

Thank you for any consideration given in this matter.

Sincerely,

cc:File Lexttr- Kennon Kossie
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0919. JOHN ADAM TAYLOR v. THE STATE. 

A17A0920. JOHN ADAM TAYLOR v. THE STATE. 

A17A0921. JOHN ADAM TAYLOR v. THE STATE. 

In 2013, a jury found John Adam Taylor guilty of child molestation, and this

Court affirmed his conviction. See Taylor v. State, 334 Ga. App. 12 (778 SE2d 26)

(2015). Taylor filed a timely motion to modify hissentence on December 2, 2015. He

also filed an untimelymotion to modify his sentence. On June 23, 2016, the trial court

denied the motions in a single order. Taylor subsequently filed an extraordinary

motion for new trial, which the trial court also denied. In Case Number A17A0919,

Taylor seeks to appeal the denial of his first motion to modify his sentence; in Case

Number A17A0920, Taylor seeksto appeal the denial of hissecond motion to modify

hissentence; and in Case Number A17A0921, Taylor seeksto appeal the denial of his

extraordinary motion for new trial. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

As to Case No. A17A0919, a sentencing court may modify a sentence within

one year of itsimposition or within 120 days after remittitur following a direct appeal,

whichever islater. See OCGA § 17-10-1 (f); Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 347-

348 (691 SE2d 247) (2010). The denial of a timely motion to modify under OCGA

§ 17-10-1 (f) is subject to direct appeal. See, e. g., Maldonado v. State, 260 Ga. App.

580 (580 SE2d 330) (2003). However, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days

after entry of the appealable order, and the proper and timely filing of a notice of

appeal is required to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a);

Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Here, Taylor filed his

notice of appeal on August 10, 2016, 48 days after entry of the trial court’s June 23,

January 23, 2017
2016 order. Accordingly, the notice of appeal was untimely, and we lack jurisdiction

to consider the appeal in A17A0919.

In Case No. A17A0920, Taylor also seeks to appeal the trial court’s June 23,

2016 order to the extent it denied his second motion to modify his sentence, filed on

May 31, 2016. However, Taylor’s notice of appeal was filed on August 17, 2016, 55

days after entry of the order on appeal. Thus, the notice of appeal is untimely, which

deprives this Court of jurisdiction. See Rowland, supra.

Finally, in Case No. A17A0921, Taylor seeks to appeal the trial court’s order

denying his extraordinary motion for new trial. An order denying an extraordinary

motion for new trial must be appealed by application for discretionary appeal. See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (7); Balkcom v. State, 227 Ga. App. 327, 329 (489 SE2d 129)

(1997). 

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over these appeals, which are hereby

DISMISSED. 

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.

01/23/2017
EXHIBIT 17.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No.333-85940, No.333-85942 and No. 333-85944) pertaining to the
DataMirror Corporation Stock Option Plan, DataMirror Corporation Executive
Stock Compensation Plan and DataMirror Corporation Share Purchase Plan of our
report dated March 4, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of DataMirror Corporation included in its Annual Report (Form
20-F), for the year ended January 31, 2003.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of DataMirror
Corporation included on page 92 of the Annual Report (Form 20-F). This
schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial
statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material
respects the information set forth therein.


Ernst & Young LLP
Toronto, Canada
June 5, 2003                                       Chartered Accountants
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 on Form 10-Q of Advanta Corp. (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Philip
M. Browne, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

/s/ Philip M. Browne
--------------------------
Philip M. Browne
Chief Financial Officer
November 8, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27600]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, November 17, 2000.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference 
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-27600 Filed 10-23-00; 4:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6834

JOHN W. FISHBACK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BOBBY P. SHEARIN, Warden; RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., Asst. 

Warden; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary of Public Safety and 

Correctional Services; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES, FORMER EMPLOYEES, 

CONTRACTORS AND FORMER CONTRACTORS OF THE NORTH BRANCH 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AND ROXBURY CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

JOHN A. ROWLEY,

Defendant.

No. 12-7137

JOHN W. FISHBACK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BOBBY P. SHEARIN, Warden; RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., Asst. 

Warden; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary of Public Safety and 

Correctional Services; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES, FORMER EMPLOYEES, 

CONTRACTORS AND FORMER CONTRACTORS OF THE NORTH BRANCH
2

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AND ROXBURY CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

JOHN A. ROWLEY,

Defendant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:11-cv-00612-JFM)

Submitted: October 25, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John W. Fishback, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

John W. Fishback appeals the district court’s orders 

denying his motions and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See Fishback v. Shearin, No. 1:11-cv00612-JFM (D. Md. June 15, 2012; Apr. 3, 2012). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       8,926,069
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,633,159
<ALLOWANCES>                                   123,543
<INVENTORY>                                 17,364,265
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,085,477
<PP&E>                                       4,606,026
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,474,949
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              65,522,715
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,069,268
<BONDS>                                     11,719,873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,259
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,250,088
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                65,522,715
<SALES>                                     16,951,274
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,215,460
<CGS>                                        6,397,039
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,397,039
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,097,024
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                38,074
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             446,806
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,721,397
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,612,852
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,108,545
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,108,545
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70
        

</TABLE>
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3095 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 

Received 

AN ACT 

To ensure that any new or revised requirement providing 

for the screening, testing, or treatment of individuals 

operating commercial motor vehicles for sleep disorders 

is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding, 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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3095 RDS

1 SECTION 1. COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR RE2 QUIREMENTS RELATING TO SLEEP DIS3 ORDERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transportation 

5 may implement or enforce a requirement providing for the 

6 screening, testing, or treatment (including consideration 

7 of all possible treatment alternatives) of individuals oper8 ating commercial motor vehicles for sleep disorders only 

9 if the requirement is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking 

10 proceeding. 

11 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall not apply 

12 to a requirement that was in force before September 1, 

13 2013. 

14 (c) SLEEP DISORDERS DEFINED.—In this section, 

15 the term ‘‘sleep disorders’’ includes obstructive sleep 

16 apnea. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 26, 

2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

                 Statement of Chief Financial Officer Furnished
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      The undersigned, Gary F. Hoskins, is the Chief Financial Officer of
Citizens South Banking Corporation (the "Company").

      This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003 (the "Report").

      By execution of this statement, I certify that:

            A)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

            B)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
                  covered by the Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

March 15, 2004                           /s/ Gary F. Hoskins
Dated                                    ---------------------------------------
                                                  Gary F. Hoskins
                                                  Chief Financial Officer