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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Unified Western Grocers, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended December 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard J. Martin, Executive Vice
President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 as of and for the periods presented in the
Report.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 13, 2007



/s/    RICHARD J. MARTINRichard J. Martin Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
VI..

CONTROL' SYSTEM ONLY

HANDLE V.

CONTROL SYST7M ONLY

MIN

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

WASHI NGTON.D C. 20301

7 APR 1977

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL

AFFAIRS

THE SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS

THE CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

THE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH & ENGINEERING

THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR

NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE

THE GENERAL COUNSEL

THE ASSISTANTS TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

THE DIRECTOR, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

SUBJECT: National Reconnaissance Office

Reference: Department of Defense Directive No. TS 5105.23,

Subj: National Reconnaissance Office, dated

March 27, 1964

Upon the departure from office of Thomas C. Reed, Director,

National Reconnaissance Office (DNRO), on 7 April 1977,

Dr. Charles W. Cook will become Acting DNRO.

Upon confirmation, the new Under Secretary of the Air Force

will become the DNRO.

Classified by

EXEMPT FROM GENERAL DECLASSIFICATION

SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE 2REE11.V6S2

EXEMPTION CATEGORY ....& _4 fte,

DECLASSIFY ON lea. XII -DK J.

Copy ___LA of __LI ernimp

1111111111 MO 0 6 5 9 3 9 / 7 7
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1
                                                                    ------------


Colleen M. Adstedt has entered into a Change in Control Agreement, and an
amendment thereto, substantially identical (apart from the names of the parties
thereto, the dates of execution and an address for notices) to the agreements
with Mr. Bristow filed as Exhibits 10.29 and 10.30 to the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000.
# C_2004228EN.01002902.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/29

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in the case of Jacob Meijer B.V against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem

(Case C-304/04)

(2004/C 228/60)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) of 13 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Jacob Meijer B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem on the following question:

Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 (1) of 4 November 1997 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff valid in so far as it provides that heading 8543 89 79 of the Combined Nomenclature includes the sound cards described at paragraph 2.3 above?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 312 of 14.11.1997, p. 1.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-24-00258-CR

Irvin Rene VALDEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 31692CR

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS Irvin Rene Valdez’s 

appeal. 

SIGNED May 8, 2024.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CLAUDE LACOMBE,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§ No. 22, 2018

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID 1201018188 (N)

§

§

Submitted: February 8, 2018

Decided: April 5, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

O R D E R

This 5th day of April 2018, after consideration of the opening brief and the 

motion to affirm, it is clear that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis 

of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its well-reasoned decision 

dated December 21, 2017. This was Lacombe’s second motion for postconviction 

relief following his guilty plea in 2013. A second or subsequent postconviction 

motion following the entry of a guilty plea is subject to summary dismissal under 

Rule 61(d)(2).1 The Superior Court did not err in denying Lacombe relief.

 

1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (stating that a second or subsequent Rule 61 motion “shall be 

summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion” meets 

additional criteria under the rule).
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL DATA FROM THE COMPANY'S
GENERAL LEDGER AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS FINANCIAL REPORT PACKAGE AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                             1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                       Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                    19,212
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        25
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>               81,949
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           0
<LOANS>                                  370,377
<ALLOWANCE>                               (2,468)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           490,435
<DEPOSITS>                               356,841
<SHORT-TERM>                              29,510
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                       50,332
<LONG-TERM>                               26,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                   5,910
<OTHER-SE>                                21,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           490,435
<INTEREST-LOAN>                            7,233
<INTEREST-INVEST>                          1,206
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               4
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                           8,443
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                         3,195
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         4,351
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                      4,092
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                315
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            10
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                            4,502
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              620
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   403
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                 403
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.08
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                              8.02
<LOANS-NON>                                1,158
<LOANS-PAST>                                 411
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                            4,499
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           2,323
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                293
<RECOVERIES>                                  81
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          2,423
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       2,423
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0
        

</TABLE>
Opinion i ssued September 13 , 2012

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO . 01
- 11
- 0 1056
- CR

____________ ANTHONY WAITERS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 228 t h District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No . 1245127

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Anthony Waiters pleaded guilty to a second

- degree felony offense of indecency with a child and pleaded “true” to the allegation in an enhancement paragraph

. The trial court found appellan t guilty, found the enhancement true, and,2

i n accordance with the terms of a ppellant’s plea agreement wi th the State, sentenced appellant to confinement for 9 years . Appellant, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to withdraw his plea 1 and a notice of appeal

. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. In a plea bargain case, a defendant may appeal only those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or after getting the trial court’ s permission to appeal. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been m ade part of the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2 (d).
T he trial court ’s certification states t hat this is a plea bargain case and that the defendant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports the trial court’ s certification. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The trial court did not rule on any pre

- trial motions , 2 and the trial court did not give permission for appellant to appeal

.

1 The record before us does not reflect that the trial court ruled on appellant ’s motion to withdraw his plea. The record also does not reflect that appellant, who became represented by appointed appellate counsel the day he filed his motion, ever complained about a failure to rule.

2 The only pre

- trial order in the record is for statutory DNA testing , of which appellant did not complain

. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 411 .1471 (West 2012) (requiring DNA testing after indictment, or waiver of indictment, for certain offenses).3

Because appellant has no right of appeal , we must dismiss the appeal

. See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea

- bargained is permitted to ap peal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardl ess of the basis for the appeal.”)

. Moreover, appellant complains in his notice of appeal that his plea was involuntary. V oluntariness of a guilty plea may not be ra ised on appeal from a plea

- bargained, felony conviction, as here. See Cooper v. State , 45 S.W.3d 77, 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.
P ER CURI A M Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).
#### Larson, Respondent, vs. Hanson, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Lines, Spooner & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Charles B. Quarles*and *James T. Guy*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Slensby & Zaidins,*attorneys, and *W. B. Rubin*of counsel, all o*f Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1850 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1850

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 907 Fourth Avenue in Lake Odessa, Michigan, as the ``Donna Sauers 
                          Besko Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2017

Mr. Amash (for himself, Mr. Moolenaar, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Huizenga, Mr. 
    Kildee, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Levin, Mrs. 
   Lawrence, Mr. Trott, Mr. Bishop of Michigan, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. 
    Upton) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 907 Fourth Avenue in Lake Odessa, Michigan, as the ``Donna Sauers 
                          Besko Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DONNA SAUERS BESKO POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 907 Fourth Avenue in Lake Odessa, Michigan, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Donna Sauers Besko Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Donna 
Sauers Besko Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
Amendment No. 2 to Capital Support Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 
 CAPITAL SUPPORT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 2 (the “Amendment”) to the Capital Support Agreement, is made as of the 29th day of September 2008, by and between
NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION (the “Support Provider”) and NORTHERN INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS (the “Trust”), on behalf of its series the Diversified Assets Portfolio (the “Fund”). 
 WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a Capital Support Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of February 21, 2008 and amended the
Agreement on July 15, 2008; and 
 WHEREAS, the Support Provider wishes to increase the level of capital support provided to the Fund;
and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to further amend the Agreement on the terms and subject to the conditions provided herein; 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, capitalized terms shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement. 
 2. Section 1(e) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as set forth below: 
 (e) “Maximum Contribution Amount” means ninety million dollars ($90,000,000). The Maximum Contribution Amount may be increased
at any time as agreed by the Trust and the Support Provider. 
 3. Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced as set forth below: 
 (a) If a Contribution Event occurs prior to the occurrence of a Termination Event (defined
below), the Support Provider will make a Capital Contribution to the Fund in the amount equal to the least of (i) the Loss incurred as a result of Contribution Event; or (ii) the Maximum Contribution Amount reduced by the amount of any
Capital Contribution previously made by the Support Provider to the Fund. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties caused this Amendment No. 2 to the Capital Support Agreement to be
executed as of the date specified above. 
  

			
	NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ William R. Dodds, Jr.

	Name:	 	William R. Dodds, Jr.
	Title:	 	Treasurer
	
	ADDRESS FOR NOTICES:
	
	50 S. LaSalle St.
	Chicago, IL 60603
		
	Attn:	 	William R. Dodds, Jr.
	
	NORTHERN INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITS DIVERSIFIED ASSETS PORTFOLIO
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Lloyd A. Wennlund

	Name:	 	Lloyd A. Wennlund
	Title:	 	President
	
	ADDRESS FOR NOTICES:
	
	50 S. LaSalle St.
	Chicago, IL 60603
		
	Attn:	 	Lloyd A. Wennlund


  

 2
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00461- CR
William Christopher Lloyd, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 684 52, H ONO RAB LE JO E CARROLL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appea l pursuant to Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant Wil liam Christopher L loy d pleade d g uilt y t o t h e o ffense of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount of one g ram or more but less than four g rams. Punishm ent was assessed at seven y ear s’ imprisonment.

L loy d’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a motion to wi t h d ra w supported by a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia by prese nting a profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord demonstrating why there
are no arguable g rounds to be advanc ed. See 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jack son v. Stat e , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous

v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). L loy d was mailed a copy of counsel’s brief andadvised of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has

been f iled. We have revie wed the rec o r d a n d counsel’s brief and ag ree that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the rec ord that might arguably support the appea l. Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Field Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 5, 2014 Do Not Publish

2
# C_2005116EN.01002801.xml

| 18.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/28

---

Corrigendum to the call for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Structuring the European Research Area’

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 309 of 15 December 2004
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 309 of 15 December 2004

(2005/C 116/13)

On page 11, point 7:

for:

for

‘7.

EUR 1,25 million

| Instrument (1) | EUR million |
| --- | --- |
| SSA | 1,25’ |

Instrument (1)

EUR million

SSA

1,25’

read:

read

‘7.

EUR 1,425 million

| Instrument (1) | EUR million |
| --- | --- |
| SSA | 1,425’ |

Instrument (1)

EUR million

SSA

1,425’

point 8, third column in the table:

for:

for

| ‘Indicative budget (EUR million) |
| --- |
| 1,0
  (minimum amount for a prize: EUR 200 000) |
| 0,25
  (minimum amount for a prize: EUR 50 000)’ |

‘Indicative budget (EUR million)

1,0

(minimum amount for a prize: EUR 200 000)

0,25

(minimum amount for a prize: EUR 50 000)’

read:

read

| ‘Indicative budget (EUR million) |
| --- |
| 1,150, of which EUR 1 million for the winner(s)
  (minimum prize: EUR 200 000)
  and EUR 150 000 for the finalists
  (EUR 30 000 per finalist) |
| 0,275, of which EUR 250 000 for the winner(s)
  (minimum prize: EUR 50 000)
  and EUR 25 000 for the finalists
  (EUR 5 000 per finalist)’ |

‘Indicative budget (EUR million)

1,150, of which EUR 1 million for the winner(s)

(minimum prize: EUR 200 000)

and EUR 150 000 for the finalists

(EUR 30 000 per finalist)

0,275, of which EUR 250 000 for the winner(s)

(minimum prize: EUR 50 000)

and EUR 25 000 for the finalists

(EUR 5 000 per finalist)’

---
=X TEA

VS C er•

In= _ . _ _

•

1::RIM. 0 PRIORIT111.111111134

1. ._

021TVEL. '

;TS mSN 1014

. .1._.TC3.1Efitria_MOTHELEPISMESUCILALDEVB.CIMIARVIZ

1 - 7TE:TTZ TO tPPLY T . DAY SYNCHRONOUS, BO DEG ORBIT TO A Cu0A-

* ,:-:1 za- nizai0 MUMMA PROCRAUCR_SAMPLBO _ : AL: 2EIEL3P 1DHICLE ASCENT GuIDAUCE PoRPOSES ARO 7 lol MT q1SS1ntt Pi A• AER. RFS10E$ TiE mfDRILPATE CA$E 

I • .:W:.4'.; AXE, TWO OTHER LIBRARY CASES HAVE CEE4 FOUND TO L ::,'/Z SI"ILAR FLAN* _TIM ALL NAVLIN_PASTerEksEcmpARY

1 ELZCTIO::3 A:',3 HAVE NOT P.A3 BENEFIT OF' NOI-AL TREAMNT THAT

1 =_11.E.'arLIEESEFLAtS....A3OVE_CASEMS_SEC"42ARY seaTiex________

[ 

' VI !:44 1113. 

.., 1*: wn ..:

TIRE NOT ANARE OF DIFFERENCE BMWS THE '" NG r AP r 01 ' ; u .

ilft fi it ,

1 FIER REuE1PT OF REBIND-22 DESIGNATING THE CASE AS REVI

LI-LUAU FP 11-; " Ns

2. FR7.' APPEARED AS I FT OUT OF

,

,

!=_El. ISSIo2._m_xGR., NNING

1. ,f....rr c

 .-.4:.. ::ELS CEEh OBSERVED EEL (EVE 

•

THE ERR . CO•!E TO %", iro_ yan £m r ID tedisuliEJAUXCESSARI

• STVEA!. SUCH u ... AUCIES, AND CILL NO LONGER ASSUME THAT

. :::: Y .11T. RECELVELEDIALUDIUMLMMINO_IS_COMELID

:, - :_EASE AZ-VISE IF THERE HAS BEEN k "'E IN PLANNING

::....::::.THAT.IHIFTS-RES2DESIBILIIY_ERA. _SDUE_OTHER SS-2. :::::AITY.

zi'n C:34 X 1014 9TH 83 DEG CUBA-EMPHASIZED NOT HAD ma 1013 "s,s

L =_AZARE_REEIND-P, ON NO LCI SS-4

.T ss-6

ss:7

_I`/1/4/e.G -gt."4"

ssziOr"-:

stZtt:

l•

-0..1,- %a • •'wt.'''. •

•

zie

SArzS

DisZttsuzzvel

SiaSs 

SS-2

••••••
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 25, 2016. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 25, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16I0268. RONNY E. JONES v. ADRIAN STEWART. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 16CV01016