alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 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 21 0 . BLANCH DAVI S, et a l . v . PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATI ON.

Th i s cas e o ri g i n at ed as a d i s p o s s es s o ry p ro ceed i n g i n m ag i s t rat e co u rt

. Fo l l o wi ng an ad v ers e ru l i n g ag ai ns t “ B l a n c h D av i s o r Occu p an t ,” Bl an ch Dav i s

p u rp ort ed to ap p ea l t h e m a g is t rat e co u rt ’ s deci s i on t o t h e s u p eri o r co u rt

. 1 On

Decem b er 1 0

, 2 0 1 4

, t h e s u p eri o r co u rt d i s m i s s e d t h e a p p eal

. Dav is fi l ed t h i s

ap p li cat io n o n Decem

b er 2 3 , 2 0 1 4 . W e l ack ju ri sd i ct i o n

. An ap pl i cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal g en eral l y m ay b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s

o f en t ry o f t h e o rd er so u g h t t o b e ap p eal ed

. See O C GA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ). Ho wev er, t h e

u n d erl y i n g s u b

ject m at t er o f an ap peal co n t ro l s ov er t h e rel ief s o u g h t in d et erm i n i n g

t h e p ro per ap p el lat e p ro ced u re. See Reb i ch v. Mi l es , 2 64 Ga. 4 6 7

, 4 6 7 -4 6 8 (4 4 8 SE2 d

1 9 2 ) (1 9 9 4 ). Th e u n d erl y i n g s u b jec t m a t t er h ere i s a d i s p o s s es s o ry ju d g m en t

. Pu rs u an t t o OCGA § 4 4 -7 -5 6

, ap p eal s fro m a d i s p o s s es so ry ju d g m en t m u st b e fi l ed

wi t h i n s ev en d ay s o f t h e dat e t h e ju d g m en t w as en t ered

. See Ra y M

. W r i gh t

, In c. v.

Jo n es , 2 3 9 Ga. Ap p

. 52 1 (5 2 1 SE2 d 4 5 6 ) (1 9 9 9). Becau se Dav i s fi l ed h er n o t i ce o f

ap p eal 13 d ay s aft er t h e s u peri o r co urt ’ s o r d e r was en t ered

, it i s un t i m el y

. A c c o r d i n g ly

, we l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n t o rev i ew th i s ap p l i cat i o n , wh ich i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED.

1 Bl an ch Dav i s , a t en an t at s u fferan ce f o l l o wi n g fo recl o s ure, i s ap p aren t l y d eceas ed

. Rat h er t h an fi l in g a su g ges t i o n o f d eat h o r a s u b s t i t u ti o n o f p art i es as t h e l aw req ui res , Dav i s ’ s at t o rn ey co n t i n u ed l i t i g at i o n in h er n am e. See OCGA § 9 -1 1 -2 5 (a). Arg u ab l y , Dav is ’ s d eat h ren d ers t h e m at t er m o o t

. Bu t i t a p pears t h at Dav is ’ s d au gh t er, M o n ica Dav i s , co n t i n u es t o o ccu py t he p ro p ert y

. Th u s , we h av e n ot
d i s m i s s ed t h e ap p l i cat i o n as m o o t . See OCGA § 5 -6 -4 8 (b ) (3 ). January 16, 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

. 01/16/2015
#### GUENTHER v. STATE.

No. 24401.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 24, 1949.

*781Ray Stevens, Austin, Wright Stubbs, Austin, for appellant.

Perry L. Jones, County Attorney, Austin, Ernest S. Goens, State’s J^-tty., of Austin,for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a $50.00 fine imposed by the County Court at Law of Travis’ County on a charge of driving on a pub-, lie highway while intoxicated.

The trial was to the court without a jury. The prosecution rested its case on the evidence of the arresting'officers and the ex-' pert testimony of Dr. Beerstecher as to the results of a test made by the officer of'the alcoholic content of appellant’s breath. - This evidence is based on a showing made by forcing the breath of appellant, by a' process thoroughly described, through a machine designated the “Plargcr Breathometer.” The evidence contained a description' of this machine and the nature of the test made through it, together with Dr. Beér-stecher’s opinion of the result of the test.

The appellant had signed an agreement for this test. The agreement did not relate to the particular instrument described ■but simply said, “ * * * do freely and voluntarily request that a test for alcohol be given me, and further state that the result of such test may be used in evidence agáinst me on my trial for the offense concerning which such alcohol test is herein made.” In pursuance of the agreement thus described, the test referred to was made. The officer having charge of it testified as to the process involved and‘the result of his findmg. Dr. Beerstecher then commented, giving his .opinion as to the. intoxication of. appellant based on such alcoholic content.

From appellant’s brief I quote: “There was a further objection based upon the theory that if the defendant was drunk he could not give his consent but appellant,; through counsel, waives this position as not. being particularly well taken and the law is well settled upon this point.” While the test and the evidence introduced by the officers show a drunken condition which might have been sufficient to relieve appellant from any waiver of his rights to object to the evidence giving the result of the test, yet it will be seen that no such objection has come to this Court.

. In view of the foregoing agreement which appellant entered into, that the test be made and that the evidence be introduced, the same was properly before the court for such consideration as he may see fit to give it as a circumstance. We are not to be under-stood as holding that the evidence of the result of the test would be admissible over proper objection. That question is. not before us.

The evidence of the arresting officers amply justified the epurt’s action in finding appellant guilty. .The evidence of Dr. Beerstecher was admitted without any valid objection and is, therefore, before the Court for such purpose and consideration as the Court may be permitted to give it under the law. . ,

Finding no .reversible .error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ■
Take notice that on January 24, 2000, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), filed a Report of Pooling Activity pursuant to a Letter Order dated January 7, 1999 regarding the above-captioned proceeding.                    Start Printed Page 6202

Williston Basin stated that it is complying with the Letter Order by submitting its report of pooling and nomination aggregation activity for the first year of pooling service.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before February 9, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-2787 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
September 21, 2016

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 21st day of September, 2016.

10-15-00360-CR	JEFFERY MARTINEZ v. THE STATE OF TEXAS - ON APPEAL FROM THE 278TH DISTRICT COURT OF WALKER COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. 26495 – AFFIRMED - Memorandum Opinion by Justice Scoggins:

	“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that the judgment be in all things affirmed, and that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel, NCCAM Special Emphasis Panel C-07.                    

*Date:*                         November 14-16, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         6:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         John C. Chah, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institutes of Health, NCCAM, Building 31, Room 5B50, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-4334, johnc@od.nih.gov.                    

Dated: October 18, 2000,

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-27882 Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
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 Personnel Management

# AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the OPM Performance Review Board. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Reinhold, Office of Human Resources and EEO, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-1882. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 4314(c) (1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review boards. The board reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and considers recommendations to the appointing authority regarding the performance of the senior executive. 

Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

The following have been designated as regular members of the Performance Review Board of the Office of Personnel Management: 

John U. Sepulveda, Deputy Director 

Mark Hunker, Chief of Staff 

William E. Flynn, Associate Director 

Henry Romero, Associate Director 

Richard A. Ferris, Associate Director 

Steven R. Cohen, Associate Director 

Carol J. Okin, Associate Director 

Emzell Blanton, Jr., Director, Office of Workforce Relations 

Kirke Harper, Director of Human Resources and EEO

[FR Doc. 00-27467 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325-01-P
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132841 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132841 

 COA: 264595 

Oakland CC: 2004-199506-FC 

JUAN HOSEA JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 16, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0416 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 24, 2007 

 Clerk
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31062 C onfer enc e Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. V E R N O N C R O S S L E Y , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 08- C R
- 43- 1
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , D AV IS, an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Th e Feder al Pu bl i c D ef enderappoi nt ed t o r epr es ent V er non C r os sl eyhas m o ve d f o r l e av e t o w i t hdr aw a nd has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A nders v. Ca lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). C r o s s le yh a s file d a re s p o n s e . T h e r e c o r d is in s u ffic ie n tlyd e v e lo p e d t o a llo w c o n s id e r a tio n a t t h is tim e o f C r o s s le y ’ s cla im s of i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of

coun sel ; su ch cl ai m s general l y “ can n otbe res olved on di r e c ta ppe alw he n [ t he y hav e ] notbe e n ra i s e d b e f o r e t he di s t r i c tc o ur ts i nc e no o p p o r tu n itye x is te d to d e v e lo p th e re c o r d o n th e m e r its o f th e a lle g a tio n s .” United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 31062

2 Un itedS ta te s v. Ca n tw ell , 470 F. 3d 1087, 1091 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) (i nt er nal quo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t at i o n om i t t e d)
. O uri nde pe nde ntre vi e w of t he r e c o r d, coun sel ’ s bri ef, an d C ross l ey ’ s r espon se di scl oses n o non f rivol ou s iss u e f

or a p p e a l
. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n f o rl e a v e t o wi t h d r a w i s GR ANT ED , cou n sel i s e x c u sed f rom f u rth er re sp on sibi l i ti es h ere i n , an d the A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D
. S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2.
Exhibit 99(b)


                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 Coastal Financial Corporation, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I Jerry L. Rexroad, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my 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
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.

This Certification is provided as of May 14, 2003.



                                              /s/ Jerry L. Rexroad
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Jerry L. Rexroad
                                              Executive Vice President and Chief
                                              Financial Officer




                                       30
#### WASHINGTON v. STATE.

No. 25844.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 14, 1952.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1952.

No attorney for appellant.

Sam W. Davis, Criminal Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, Asst. Criminal Dist. Atty., Houston, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a penalty of twenty years in 'the penitentiary upon his conviction for murder with malice.

We have no statement of facts in the record and the only bill of exception complains of the failure of the court to grant him the privilege of filing a motion for a new trial, setting up as grounds newly discovered evidence.

This case was set for submission and counsel appeared in oral argument on the 23rd day of April, 1952, at which time counsel was given an extended period of one week in which to file his brief. None has been filed and we are not in position to discuss the question which he attempted to raise.

The record shows that appellant was tried and the verdict rendered on the 5th day of November, 1951. On the 1st day of January, following, he was called before the court to be sentenced and at that time raised a question about his newly discovered evidence. On the 3rd day of January, 1952, 59 days after the verdict was rendered, he presented his motion for a new trial. It is indicated that he expects to prove by named witnesses, whose affidavits were attached, that several pistol shots were fired at him before the fatal shot by a shotgun. We have no indication, however, that an issue of self-defense was brought into the case at the trial and it is definitely shown that appellant did not, on the advice of his attorney, testify in his own behalf. We find no grounds for the contention that the trial court committed error in refusing to consider the motion for a new trial.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2023

- 0375

_____________________________
M ARCEL C OTE , Appellant,

v.

R EEMPLOYMENT A SSISTANCE A PPEALS C OMMISSION , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission. Charles Faircloth, Jr.
, Chairman

.

May 23, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , R AY , and K ELSEY , JJ. , concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Marcel Cote, pro se
, Appellant.

Amanda L. Neff, Deputy General Counsel, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2980 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2980

 To require certain certifications before funds may be awarded for the 
   operation of a Navigator program under the Patient Protection and 
              Affordable Care Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2013

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require certain certifications before funds may be awarded for the 
   operation of a Navigator program under the Patient Protection and 
              Affordable Care Act, 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. REQUIRING CERTAIN CERTIFICATIONS BEFORE FUNDS MAY BE AWARDED 
              FOR THE OPERATION OF A NAVIGATOR PROGRAM UNDER ACA.

    No funds may be awarded under section 1311 of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18031) to an entity for 
the operation of a Navigator program under subsection (i) of such 
section or for facilitation or advocacy for enrollment under 
subparagraph (B) or (E) of subsection (d)(6) of such section, until the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies to the Congress that 
such entity has certified the following with respect to the use of such 
funds:
            (1) The entity will not provide advice concerning benefits, 
        terms, and features of a particular qualified health plan or 
        offer advice about which such plan is better or worse or 
        suitable for a particular individual or employer.
            (2) The entity will not recommend or endorse a particular 
        qualified health plan or advise consumers about which such plan 
        to choose.
            (3) The entity will not accept any compensation or 
        consideration that is dependent, in whole or in part, on 
        whether an individual enrolls in or purchases such a plan.
            (4) The entity will not violate any applicable insurance 
        law or regulation of the applicable State or any subpoena or 
        order of the Commissioner of Insurance of that State.
                                 <all>
```