alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A1295. TERRY WAYNE VESELICA v. TERESA L. VESELICA.

On May 12, 2016, the trial court entered an order finding TerryWayne Veselica

in contempt of a divorce and settlement agreement for failing to pay his children’s

health insurance and his portion of one of the children’s student loan payments. Terry

filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. He then filed this direct

appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

Where, as here, the underlying action involves rights and obligations created by

a settlement agreement incorporated into a divorce decree, and does not involve child

custody, the case is a domestic relations matter within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-35

(a) (2). See Walker v. Estate of Mays, 279 Ga. 652, 653 (1) (619 SE2d 679) (2005);

Collins v. Davis, 318 Ga. App. 265, 266-267 (1) (733 SE2d 798) (2012). Appeals in

such matters must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary appeal. See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). Terry’s failure to follow the required appellate procedure

deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is 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.

March 30, 2017

03/30/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                         623,865
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,125,433
<ALLOWANCES>                                    45,289
<INVENTORY>                                  1,641,948
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,782,787
<PP&E>                                       8,545,630
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,601,785
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,219,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,316,441
<BONDS>                                      2,456,086
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,296,959
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,503,567
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,219,561
<SALES>                                      5,268,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,268,855
<CGS>                                        3,426,556
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,426,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,256,748
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             115,380
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                470,171
<INCOME-TAX>                                   183,422
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            286,749
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   286,749
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SHAMIM EBRAHIMI, §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CASE NO. 3:22-CV-1906-E-BK

§

MYKILL FIELDS, ET AL., §

DEFENDANTS. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

in this case. No objections were filed. The Court reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions,

and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate.

SO ORDERED: January 27, 2023.

Case 3:22-cv-01906-E-BK Document 11 Filed 01/27/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 172
# Official Journal C 318/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 318 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5716 September 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 318

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5716 September 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | OLAF Supervisory Committee |
| 2014/C 318/1 | Activity Report of the OLAF Supervisory Committee — February 2013-January 2014 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

OLAF Supervisory Committee

2014/C 318/1

Activity Report of the OLAF Supervisory Committee — February 2013-January 2014

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 252

To designate October 1993 as ‘‘Crime Prevention Month’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 6, 1993

Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. KLECZKA, and

Mr. SHARP) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate October 1993 as ‘‘Crime Prevention Month’’.

Whereas crime prevention improves the quality of life in every

community;

Whereas crime prevention is a cost-effective answer to the

problems caused by crime, drug abuse, and fear of crime;

Whereas crime prevention is central to a sound criminal justice system at national, State, and local levels;

Whereas more than 27,000,000 people in the United States

are actively engaged in helping their communities to prevent the commission of crimes against persons and

property;
2

•HJ 252 IH

Whereas millions of citizens have demonstrated that by working together, they can reduce crime, drug abuse, and fear

of crime;

Whereas all people of the United States, from preschoolers to

senior citizens can help themselves, their families, and

their neighborhoods to prevent crime and to build safer

and more caring environments;

Whereas an important challenge facing all people and groups

in the United States (including individuals, State and

local agencies, civic and community groups, religious institutions, schools, businesses, and law enforcement agencies) is to weave methods into daily life that prevent

crime and become part of society’s norms;

Whereas it is important to annually honor persons who work

throughout society to prevent crime and to build and sustain the Nation’s communities; and

Whereas the National Crime Prevention Campaign (featuring

McGruff the Crime Dog and promoted by the Department of Justice, the National Crime Prevention Council,

and the Crime Prevention Coalition) promotes diverse

partnerships among law enforcement agencies, citizens,

businesses, and government to reduce crime and to improve community life throughout the Nation: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That October 1993 is designated as ‘‘Crime Prevention

4 Month’’, and the President is authorized and requested

5 to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United
3

•HJ 252 IH

1 States to observe the month with appropriate ceremonies

2 and activities.

Æ
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 9 -00 311 -CV In r e Cha ngeto Win ORIG IN A L PR OC E E D IN GFR OM T R A V IS C OU N T Y ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Relator Chang e to Win’s petiti on for writ of mandamus and r equest for emer g ency relief are denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Waldrop Filed: June 5, 2009
CH

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0584

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

MICHAEL JACOB DUNNE, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including January 28, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 19 2022

12/19/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0584
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          21,633
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  775,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,783
<INVENTORY>                                    622,591
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,589,532
<PP&E>                                       6,156,262
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,478,493
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,525,560
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,118,848
<BONDS>                                      1,209,846
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,797,442
<OTHER-SE>                                     574,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,525,560
<SALES>                                      3,352,376
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,352,376
<CGS>                                        1,983,479
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,983,479
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               914,702
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                405,884
<INCOME-TAX>                                   139,057
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            266,827
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   266,827
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-78,258-01

EX PARTE ANGEL GALVAN RIVERA

ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FROM CAUSE NO. 45906-41-1 IN THE 41 DISTRICT COURT

ST

EL PASO COUNTY

Per Curiam.

O P I N I O N

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07.

In June 1986, a jury found applicant guilty of the offense of capital murder committed

in October 1984. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of

Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set applicant’s

punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct

appeal. Rivera v. State, 808 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Applicant filed his initial
Rivera - 2

post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court on August 31,

1995. Having discovered that a writ application had been filed in the trial court in 1995 that

had never been forwarded, this Court on August 20, 2012, ordered the trial court to resolve

the issues raised in the writ application and have the clerk forward it to this Court within a

certain period of time.

This Court received the record of the case complete with signed findings and

conclusions on November 19, 2012. However, it was later discovered that applicant’s

counsel had never been notified of this Court’s order. Therefore, counsel did not have a

chance to participate in the trial court’s resolution of the issues. Accordingly, we remanded

the case to the trial court to resolve the issues presented in the writ application with the

appropriate participation of counsel on both sides on January 30, 2013.

Applicant presents nine allegations in his application in which he challenges the

validity of his conviction and resulting sentence. Based upon an agreed stipulation with the

State, applicant has agreed to waive all allegations challenging the validity of his conviction

(allegations one through four, six, and part of eight); these claims are dismissed as waived.

The trial court adopted the parties’ agreed findings of fact and conclusions of law which

recommend relief based upon ineffective assistance of counsel as set out in allegation five.

This Court has reviewed the record with respect to the ineffective assistance of

counsel allegation made by applicant. Based on the habeas court’s findings and conclusions

and our own review, we hold that applicant’s counsel failed to investigate applicant’s
Rivera - 3

background or present mitigating evidence at the punishment phase in violation of Rompilla

v Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005). See also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003); Williams v.

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000). Therefore, relief is granted. We dismiss as moot applicant’s

remaining challenges to his sentence (allegations seven, part of eight, and nine).

We vacate applicant’s sentence and remand the case to the trial court for a new

punishment hearing or other proceeding consistent with this opinion. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 44.251(c).

DELIVERED: DECEMBER 11, 2013

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### DOHERTY et al. v. HAYS et al.

No. 9839.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Jan. 4, 1950.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1950.

John C. Butler, of Austin, for appellants.

Shelton & Shelton, Polk Shelton, of Austin, for appellees.

ARCHER, Chief Justice.

This is a suit instituted in the County Court at Law in Travis County, by Janette Hays et al. against Lee Doherty and James Hudson, to recover $225 which plaintiffs alleged they paid to Hudson as rental on certain real property, with the agreement that plaintiffs could sublease such property; that Doherty refused to permit plaintiffs to move into the property; that demand was made for the return of the money paid, which was refused; that Doherty told the plaintiffs he would sublease the premises to them, but refused. By trial amendment plaintiffs sought judgment against Doherty alone. Defendant Doherty pleaded Art. 3995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., and denied knowledge, consent or ratification of the payment to Hudson.

Trial was had to the court without the aid of a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant Lee Doherty 'for $225, and denied recovery against Hudson.

There are no statement of facts, findings of fact, or conclusions of law, or any stipulation of facts, 'or any' bills of exception brought forward; and the judg*1022ment appearing fair on its face, it is presumed valid, and this case should be affirmed.

The presumption is that the court ■heard only relevant testimony, and in such a way as -fo support the judgment entered. Christian v. Boyd et al., Tex.Civ.App., 222 S.W.2d 157.

Appellant Doherty’s complaint is that parol evidence, to show an agreement to assign a written lease having more than one year to run, should be excluded; of this we find no fault, but this was to recover money paid and not for the possession of the premises, or for damages for failure to deliver the possession of the premises.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
# Official Journal L 8/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 8 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5913 January 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 8

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5913 January 2016

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/24 of 8 January 2016 imposing special conditions governing the import of groundnuts from Brazil, Capsicum annuum and nutmeg from India and nutmeg from Indonesia and amending Regulations (EC) No 669/2009 and (EU) No 884/2014 (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/25 of 12 January 2016 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 6 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/24 of 8 January 2016 imposing special conditions governing the import of groundnuts from Brazil, Capsicum annuum and nutmeg from India and nutmeg from Indonesia and amending Regulations (EC) No 669/2009 and (EU) No 884/2014 (
  1
  )

Capsicum annuum

1

1

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/25 of 12 January 2016 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

6

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 21, 2015

CONTACT: Treasury Public Affairs (202) 622-2960

FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 21, 2015

WASHINGTON – Secretary Lew today convened a meeting of the Financial Stability Oversight 

Council (Council) in executive and open sessions at the Treasury Department. 

During the executive session, the Council received an update on recent developments in foreign 

exchange markets from the Treasury Department. The Council then received a presentation from 

the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on speculative-grade debt markets, 

including leveraged lending. Following a presentation from staff on potential topics for the 

Council’s 2015 annual report, Council members discussed these topics and others that should be 

considered in this year’s report. 

Finally, the Department of Justice gave a presentation to the Council regarding the lawsuit 

brought by MetLife, Inc. challenging the Council’s determination in December that the company 

would be subject to supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and 

enhanced prudential standards. 

During the open session, the Council discussed its nonbank financial company designations 

process. The Council then received an update on efforts by U.S. and foreign regulators to reform 

interest rate benchmarks.

Finally, the Council voted to approve the minutes of its previous meeting on December 18. 

Additional information regarding the Council and the minutes approved today are available at 

www.fsoc.gov. 

###
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

SAMANTHA ELIZABETH FORSYTHE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. CIV-21-1145-J

)

MICHAEL CARR, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

ORDER

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. 

Erwin for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636. [Doc. No. 3]. On January 7, 2022, 

Judge Erwin issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the transfer of this action, for 

lack of jurisdiction, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. [Doc. 

No. 6]. Plaintiff was advised of her right to object to the Report and Recommendation by January 

24, 2022. Plaintiff has filed no objection and has therefore waived any right to appellate review 

of the factual and legal issues in the Report and Recommendation. See Moore v. United States, 

950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 6] and 

TRANSFERS this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of February, 2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00099-P Document 8 Filed 02/08/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 45
#### STARK v. STATE.

No. 25905.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 18, 1952.

No attorney for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for the offense of robbery by assault, with a penalty of 20 years in the Penitentiary.

The record brought forward contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. The proceedings all appear regular and nothing is presented for review by this court.

The judgment is affirmed.
Regulatory Evaluation 

')..0 1 <-r- ( t- o.)o-A-l.J 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -· · ~ 

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of tlze changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspect Attach 6.0 $79 38 Fittings 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $22,382 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: @ 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Replace One attach 

fitting when only 12.0 $95 

one is found to be 

out of tolerance 

7 
Replace Both attach 

fittings when both 24.0 $190 

are found to be out 

of tolerance 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): Mooney 

warrants labor and parts. On condition replacement labor is 12 hours per side; 24 labor hours if 

both sides require replacement. 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? G 

YES* D NO [8] 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? 0 

YES* D NO [8] 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. G 

YES D N0[8] 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. ls it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? G 

YES* D N0[8] 

*Explanation: 

8