alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A01A0750.

#### HILL v. THE STATE.

(552 SE2d 430)

Johnson, Presiding Judge.

Craig Hill was indicted for fourteen offenses, including six armed robberies and an aggravated assault. On April 8, 1992, while represented by counsel, Hill pled guilty to four counts of armed robbery, and the state agreed not to prosecute the remaining counts. On May 7, 1992, the trial court sentenced Hill to four life sentences, to be served concurrently. The same day, Hill’s attorney filed an application to have the sentences reviewed by the superior court sentence review panel. The sentence review panel affirmed Hill’s sentences.

In October 2000, Hill filed a “Motion to Correct Sentence.” In it, he claimed that the sentences imposed on the guilty pleas were void because (1) the sentences were outside the legal limits of the law at the time of sentencing, and (2) they resulted from his receiving ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the sentences were legally imposed and noting that it was without authority to modify the sentences outside of the term in which they were imposed. We agree with the trial court and affirm, *777adding that Hill’s contention regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is not reviewable by this Court.

Decided May 31, 2001.

Craig Hill, *pro se.*

*Daniel J. Craig, District Attorney, Charles R. Sheppard, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

1. In general, a motion to vacate a sentence is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal case after the term in which the judgment was entered has passed.1 An exception exists where a sentence is void, i.e., where the court has imposed punishment which the law does not allow.2 However, Hill’s sentences are lawful. Life imprisonment is authorized for armed robbery, just as it was at the time of Hill’s sentencing.3 And, contrary to Hill’s position, it is well settled that the giving of a life sentence does not violate statutory authority mandating that a sentence be for a determinate number of years.4

2. Inasmuch as Hill’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not discussed in the plea and sentencing hearing, and there is no transcript of a post-plea hearing, the merits of that claim cannot be determined wholly by. reference to the existing record. Because the claim requires development in a post-plea hearing, Hill’s remedy is to pursue a habeas corpus action.5

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Ruffin and Ellington, JJ, concur.*

1

*Battle v. State,*235 Ga. App. 101, 102 (508 SE2d 467) (1998).

2

Id.

3

 See OCGA § 16-8-41 (b); *Williams v. State,*208 Ga. App. 716 (1) (431 SE2d 469) (1993).

4

 See *Parker v. State,*216 Ga. App. 649 (455 SE2d 360) (1995); *Null v. State,*216 Ga. App. 641, 642-643 (455 SE2d 359) (1995).

5

 See *Hodges v. State,*271 Ga. 466 (520 SE2d 689) (1999); *Grantham v. State,*267 Ga. 635, 636 (481 SE2d 219) (1997).
Case 2:22-cr-00028-Z-BR Document 125 Filed 06/30/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 301
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 Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

                    By Notice dated August 22, 2000, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 6, 2000, (65 FR 54067), ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals, Inc., 238 South Main Street, Assonet, Massachusetts 02702, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of phenylacetone (8501), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II.                

The firm plans to import the phenylacetone to manufacture amphetamine.

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of IPS Freetown Fine Chemicals, Inc., is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. This investigation included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to Section 1008(a) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act and in accordance with Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, § 1301.34, the above firm is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed above.

Dated: October 18, 2000.

John H. King,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-28697  Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
#### TOWNSEND v. TOWNSEND.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 7, 1952.

Redwine & Redwine, Winchester, for appellant.

M. E.- Strange, Stanton, for appellee.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

Frances and Robert Townsend were married for the second time in ¡194S. In 1949, Mrs. Townsend filed an action for divorce, but the couple were reconciled. She filed this action in May, 1951, seeking a divorce ■on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Mr. Townsend sought a divorce for the same reason. The chancellor granted Mrs. Townsend a divorce and allowed her $50 as alimony. She had asked for alimony in the amount of $40 per month. On this .appeal she is asking a reasonable allowance for alimony and a division of the household furnishings.

Mr. Townsend has a curtesy interest in a farm left by his first wife. He receives $60 per month from a G. I. insurance policy-on -a deceased son. He owns a saddle horse and an equitable interest in a team. He said he made approximately $25 a week clear when he was using his team.

The chancellor was warranted in granting Mrs. Townsend a divorce, but he should have made a more substantial allowance for her for alimony We think an award of $1000, to be paid in monthly installments of not less than $25, would be reasonable, and we so direct. Mr. Townsend’s property should be impressed with a lien for this award.

Judgment reversed, with directions to set it aside, and for the entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion.
#### SHAVER v. STATE.

No. 25514.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 28, 1951.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, ior the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $100.

There are no bills of exception in the record.

The complaint and information appear regular on their face; and nothing being presented for review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.1


                             JOINT FILING AGREEMENT

         In accordance  with Rule 13d-1(k) under the Securities  Exchange Act of
1934, as amended,  the undersigned hereby agree to the joint filing on behalf of
each of them of a statement on Schedule 13D (including  amendments thereto) with
respect to the Class A Common  Stock,  par value $0.33 per share,  of Cox Radio,
Inc.,  and that this Joint  Filing  Agreement  be included as an Exhibit to such
joint filing.

         This  Joint   Filing   Agreement   may  be  executed  in  one  or  more
counterparts,  and each such counterpart  shall be an original but all of which,
taken together, shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hereby execute this Agreement as of
this 31st day of July, 2000.

                                                       COX ENTERPRISES, INC.


                                                        By:/s/ Andrew A. Merdek
                                                           ---------------------
                                                           Andrew A. Merdek
                                                           Secretary

                                                        COX HOLDINGS, INC.

                                                        By:/s/ Andrew A. Merdek
                                                           ---------------------
                                                           Andrew A. Merdek
                                                           Secretary

                                                         COX BROADCASTING, INC.

                                                        By:/s/ Andrew A. Merdek
                                                            --------------------
                                                            Andrew A. Merdek
                                                            Secretary



                                                  Andrew A. Merdek for Anne Cox
                                                  Chambers, her attorney-in-fact



                                                     By: /s/ Barbara Cox Anthony
                                                           ---------------------
                                                             Barbara Cox Anthony
#### THACKER v. STATE.

No. 24449.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 2, 1949.

None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of Seventy-five Dollars.

The State’s testimony showed appellant guilty of the offense charged; that of the appellant, his innocence. It was the province of the trial court before whom the case was tried to accept the testimony of the State’s witnesses.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation,
certifies 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
Corporation.

/s/ RICHARD MACCHIA
------------------------------------
Richard Macchia
Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
March 28, 2003


                                       8
|                                                                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                                       
|View History:                                                                                              
|                                                                                                           
|U.S. Refinery Desulfurization, Gasoline Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                           
|U.S. Refinery Desulfurization, Gasoline Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0    | Year-1    | Year-2    | Year-3    | Year-4    | Year-5    | Year-6    | Year-7    | Year-8    | Year-9   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ---------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |           |           |           |           | 1,262,800 | 1,530,900 | 2,056,470 | 2,221,568 | 2,420,968 | 2,415,282
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2,394,882 | 2,578,782 | 2,519,082 | 2,582,182 | 2,639,235 | 2,727,384 | 2,773,434 | 2,905,437 | 2,952,227 | 3,042,497
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3,164,957 | 2,985,157 | 2,920,358 | 2,900,785 | 2,922,244 |           |           |           |           |          
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 187

Relating to the December 1993 presidential election in Gabon.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 21, 1993

Mr. TORRICELLI submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Relating to the December 1993 presidential election in

Gabon.

Whereas respect for human rights and the conduct of free

and fair elections are tenets of United States foreign

policy;

Whereas 13 candidates have registered to compete in the December 1993 presidential election in Gabon and to participate in the official presidential campaign which commenced on November 5, 1993;

Whereas the incumbent President and candidate Omar Bongo

governed a one-party state from 1968 to 1990, allowed

multiparty legislative elections in 1990, and has pledged

to hold a free and fair presidential election in December

1993;
2

•HCON 187 IH

Whereas the Government of Gabon has requested the presence of neutral and nonpartisan election observers for the

presidential election process and has acknowledged the

need for civic and governmental education and preparatory efforts before the December 1993 presidential

election;

Whereas some incidents of civil unrest have been followed by

suppressions of freedom recently in Gabon;

Whereas Gabon received approximately $140,000 in assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance

Act of 1961 (relating to international military education

and training) for fiscal year 1993 and Gabon is projected

to receive the same amount for fiscal year 1994;

Whereas the United States supports the policy of ‘‘enlargement’’ of democracy; and

Whereas the December 1993 presidential election in Gabon

represents an opportunity for the African nation to reverse the series of democratic setbacks in Africa and such

election could become a test case for African democratization: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) urges the Government of Gabon and incum4 bent President Omar Bongo to honor the pledge to

5 adhere to international law by allowing a free and

6 fair presidential election in Gabon in December

7 1993, including the neutral and impartial prepara8 tion and administration of the election process, free-
3

•HCON 187 IH

1 dom of expression in an open media, and observation

2 of the election by a neutral group of observers;

3 (2) pledges to condemn any and all reversals in

4 the process of democratization in Gabon; and

5 (3) calls upon the President—

6 (A) to continue urging the Government of

7 Gabon, incumbent President Bongo, and all

8 other parties in Gabon to help Gabon fulfill its

9 pledge to hold a free and fair presidential elec10 tion in December 1993; and

11 (B) to encourage United States allies to

12 also urge the Government of Gabon and Presi13 dent Bongo to hold a free and fair presidential

14 election in December 1993.

Æ
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 136

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of the House from

September 7, 1993.7, 1993, or Sunday, August 8, 1993, to Tuesday,from Friday, August 6, 1993, Saturday, August1993, and a recess or adjournment of the Senategust 10, 1993, to Wednesday, September 8,1993, Monday, August 9, 1993, or Tuesday, AuFriday, August 6, 1993, Saturday, August 7,
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 136

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on Friday,

3 August 6, 1993, Saturday, August 7, 1993, Monday, Au4 gust 9, 1993, or Tuesday, August 10, 1993, pursuant to

5 a motion made by the Majority Leader, or his designee,

6 it stand adjourned until noon on Wednesday, September

7 8, 1993, or until noon on the second day after Members

8 are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this

9 concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that

10 when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of busi11 ness on Friday, August 6, 1993, Saturday, August 7,

12 1993, or Sunday, August 8, 1993, pursuant to a motion

13 made by the Majority Leader, or his designee, in accord14 ance with this resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned

15 until Tuesday, September 7, 1993, at such time as may

16 be specified by the Majority Leader or his designee in the

17 motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second

18 day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to
2

HCON 136 EH

1 section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs

2 first.

3 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

4 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

5 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead6 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

7 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

8 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives August 6,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

___________ 

No. 24-10656

___________ 

David Sambrano, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated; David Castillo, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated; Kimberly Hamilton, on their own behalf and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated; Debra Jennefer Thal Jonas, on 

their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Genise 

Kincannon, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated; Jarrad Rains, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated; Alyse Medlin, on her own behalf and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated; Charles Burk, on his own behalf and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus

United Airlines, Incorporated,

Defendant—Appellee.

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CV-1074

______________________________ 

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-10656 Document: 48-2 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2024

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 276 Filed 09/06/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 19327
No. 24-10656

2

IT IS ORDERED that Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction is DENIED as unnecessary.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ unopposed motion to 

dismiss the appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42 is GRANTED.

Case: 24-10656 Document: 48-2 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2024

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 276 Filed 09/06/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 19328
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MAURIE MOORE §

§

VS. § ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-201-Y

§

CARVANA, LLC §

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order issued this same day and Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 58, all claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE to their refiling. All costs of Court under 28 U.S.C. §

1920 shall be borne as agreed by the parties, or, if no agreement

has been reached, by the party incurring same.

SIGNED March 29, 2023.

____________________________

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

FINAL JUDGMENT - Page Solo

TRM/chr

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 30 Filed 03/29/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 118
1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3557

___________ Dontay Lay, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. H.N. Green, Sheriff, St. Francis County, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 15, 2007 Filed: July 6, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Dontay Lay (Lay) appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 comp laint for failure to comply with Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules of the East ern District of Arkansas, which allows dismissal if a communication from the court is not responded to within thirty days. The district court dismissed the action after Lay failed to respond to the district court’s order to amend his complaint within thirty days. Upon careful review, we conclude that the dismissal was not an abuse of discretion. See Nw. Bank & Trust Co. v. First-2- Ill. Nat’l Bank , 354 F.3d 721, 725 (8th Cir. 2003) (sta ndard of review); Settlemire v. Watson , 877 F.2d 13, 14 (8th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s dismissal without prejudice of pro se co mplaint pursuant to local rule allowing dismissal where litigant fails to respond to co mmunication of court within thirty days). Although Lay contends he did not receivethe district court’s order directing him to amend his complaint, Lay did not raise this matter be fore the district court and we will not consider the argument for the first time on appeal. See Poolman v. City of Grafton , __ F.3d __, No. 06-3220, 2007 WL 1597912, at *3 (8th Cir. June 5, 2007). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
Case 4:22-cr-00072-O Document 28 Filed 05/11/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 51
Case 4:22-cr-00072-O Document 28 Filed 05/11/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 52