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:

A20D0245. ASHLEY S. THURMAN v. THE STATE.

Ashley S. Thurman filed this application for discretionary appeal seeking to

challenge the superior court’s order dismissing an appeal.

1 Although the application

includes a copy of the order sought to be appealed, it did not contain a stamped

“filed” copy of the order as required by Court of Appeals Rule 31 (c). Without the

stamped copy, we were unable to ascertain whether the filing was timely. See OCGA

§ 5-6-34 (d) (applications must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order to be

appealed). 

On December 30, 2019, this Court ordered Thurman to supplement her

application with a stamped “filed” copy of the order sought to be appealed within 10

1 Thurman filed a prior discretionary application from a municipal court order

convicting her of possessing marijuana. We dismissed that application based upon

Thurman’s failure to first seek appellate review in superior court. See Case No.

A20D0067, dismissed Sept. 24, 2019.

January 23, 2020
days or the application would be dismissed. Because no stamped “filed” order was

filed within the time allowed, this application is hereby DISMISSED.2

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.

2 On January 15, 2020, Thurman belatedly submitted a stamped copy of the

order showing the order was entered by the trial court on November 18, 2019. Based

on that filing date, the application is untimely. 

01/23/2020
BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C .
Agreement s Adopte d b yth e Passenge rService s Conferenc e (PSC ) o f th e Docke t OST-2008 - O ? S^ ^ Internationa l Ai rTransport Associatio n - oo o \

APPLICATIO N FO R APPROVA L O F AGREEMENT S B YTH E INTERNATIONA L AI R TRANSPOR TASSOCIATIO N
lAT A AGREEMEN

T APPROVE

D & IM'vrjN'ZED y , DOCKETOST-2f2£
- O'^S'*^A C • OAT E /^<*-^i ^ ^ % :i£>( 0 Thi s approval andgran t

o f antitrus t immunity i s subject , wher e applicabl e t o condition s previousl y imposed . Thi s actio n i s effectiv e after 7 day s unles s apetitio n i s file dunde r 1 4 CF R385.3 0 o r

arevie w i s undertake n o n th e Department' s ow n motion . I n view o f th e agreement' s noncontroversia l natur e an dth e availability o f th e abov e procedure , th e 21-day MrigiU n 1 4 CF R303.4 2 i s waived .

Novembe r21 , 200 8 Communication s wit h respect t o thi s documen t shoul d b e sen t to :

Dougla s Lavi n Regiona l Vic e Presiden t - Nort h Americ a Internationa l Ai rTranspor t Associatio n 60 1 Pennsylvani a Avenue , NW , Suit e 300 - Nort h Buildin g Tel : +202-628-929 2 # Fax / Internationa l Numbe r+202-628-944 8

Washington , D.C . 2000 4
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

No. 1D18-2977 

_____________________________ 

WILLIAM C. SIMMONS, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County. 

Kelvin C. Wells, Judge. 

February 8, 2019 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

ROWE, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur. 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________ 
2 

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kasey Helms Lacey, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. 

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report of Firearms Training Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory A. Ton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



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



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



Date: July 14, 2005



/s/    GREGORY A.
TONGregory A. Ton Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00424-CR

Adam Guerrero Perez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 147TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-DC-14-202568

THE HONORABLE CLIFFORD A. BROWN, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R F O R C L E R K T O P R O V I D E

A P P E L L A T E R E C O R D TO A P P E L L A N T

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by 

a brief concluding that the instant appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel has certified to the Court that he 

provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine 

the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied appellant with a form motion for 

pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2014). Appellant has timely filed the motion requesting access to the appellate record with 

this Court.

Appellant’s pro se motion is granted. We hereby direct the clerk of the trial 

court to provide a copy of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record to appellant, and to provide 
written verification to this Court of the date and manner in which the appellate record was 

provided, on or before September 19, 2016. See id. at 321.

It is ordered on September 8, 2016.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

Do Not Publish
II 

Calendar No. 271 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2524 

[Report No. 117–72] 

To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to exclude certain payments to aged, blind, or disabled Alaska Natives or descendants of 

Alaska Natives from being used to determine eligibility for certain programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 28, 2021 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. SULLIVAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

FEBRUARY 10, 2022 

Reported by Mr. MANCHIN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to exclude certain payments to aged, blind, or disabled Alaska 

Natives or descendants of Alaska Natives from being 

used to determine eligibility for certain programs, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2524 RS

1 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN PROGRAMS. 

2 Section 29(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

3 Act (43 U.S.C. 1626(c)) is amended, in the undesignated 

4 matter following paragraph (3), by striking subparagraph 

5 (E) and inserting the following: 

6 ‘‘(E) an interest in a Settlement Trust or an 

7 amount distributed from or benefit provided by a 

8 Settlement Trust to a Native or descendant of a Na9 tive who is an aged, blind, or disabled individual (as 

10 defined in section 1614(a) of the Social Security Act 

11 (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)).’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 271 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2524 

[Report No. 117–72] 

A BILL 

To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

for certain programs, and for other purposes. Natives from being used to determine eligibility disabled Alaska Natives or descendants of Alaska to exclude certain payments to aged, blind, or 

FEBRUARY 10, 2022 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40525 Summary Calendar

LAURA JOSEFINA SALINAS MOYA , Plaintiff

– Appellant

v. NORMA LIMON, Harlingen Field Office Director, Citizenship and Immigration Services , Defendant

– Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1 :1 6

- C V

- 319

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Laura Josefina Salinas Moya (Plaintiff) sought a declaratory judgment that she is a United States citizen. At trial, her citizenship status came down
to whether her mother was born in the United States. As proof of her mother’s birth in the United States, Plai ntiff offered the testimony of a relative who stated that the mother told her several times that she was born in Weslaco,

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 9, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40525 Document: 00515228382 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2019No. 19

- 40525

2 Texas. The mother’s baptismal certificate also lists Weslaco as the place of birth. But both the mother’s Mexican birth certificate and Mexican marriage certificate list Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico, as the place of birth. After considering this competing evidence, the district court ruled that “Plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [her mother] was born in th e United States and therefore failed to establish Plaintiff is a United States citizen.” On appeal, Plaintiff argues that it was error to admit the Mexican birth certificate. But Plaintiff did not object to the exhibit at trial. More than that,
she of fered the birth certificate as an exhibit. She cannot now complain about
this evidence she offered into the record. Plaintiff further argues that the district court failed to give any weight to the baptismal certificate. But the district court did consider the baptismal certificate, it just concluded that the baptismal certificate

— along with the testimony of the relative , who did not meet Plaintiff’s mother until the mother was ten and living in Mexico

— failed to meet Plain tiff’s burden of proof given the different birthplace listed in the birth and marriage certificates. As the factfinder, the district court determines the weight to give competing evidence. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. , 395 U.S. 100, 123 (1969). That principle also defeats Plaintiff’s argument that the district court had to give the baptismal certificate more weight than the birth and marriage certificates because the baptismal document was created earlier. There is no rule that
older e vidence is automatically more credible; the factfinder may consider numerous factors in determining what evidence is most convincing. Because these and other arguments Plaintiff raises ask us to reweigh the evidence, they are not a basis for reversal.
Th e judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-40525 Document: 00515228382 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2019
From: Land, Eva

Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:11 AM

To: Maness, Katie

Cc: Fortin, Kelly
Subject: RE: Meeting with EPA

Katie,

Thanks for providing the meeting information, the agenda looks good. As of now the following people

have confirmed their attendance:

Kelly Fortin

- Acting, Chief Air Permit Section

Eva Land

- Permit Writer
Stan Krivo

- Modeling Section

David McNeal

- Monitorin g Section

Jason Dressler

- Enforcement Section Lori Shepherd

- Permit Writer
Rick Gilliam

- Modeling Section

A few other permit writers may also sit in on the meeting.

We will hold off on sending the completeness determination, and we will provide you with o ur specific questions shortly.

Eva Land
Air Permits Section

EPA

- Region 4 61 Forsyth St., SW Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404

- 562

- 9103

From: "Maness, Katie" < Kathryn.Maness@anadarko.com > To: Eva Land/R4/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/24/2013 09:37 AM Subject: RE: Meeting with EPA

Good Morning Eva, How are you doing? I tried to give you a call this morning, but I can’t get through on the phone lines for some reason. I wanted to touch base with you re garding the agenda for the meeting on February 7 th . Do you know who will be attending the meeting from EPA? We are planning to bring the following personnel:

Katie Maness

- APC Bill Grygar

- APC

Sara Carlson

- APC

Alan O’Donnell

- APC

Rahul Pendse

- Trinity Doug ie Robertson

– TransoceanAt the meeting, we would like the opportunity to answer any questions about the application

completeness determination. Would you consider holding off on sendin g us your application completeness determination until we had a chance to discuss the permit application with you? In addition, if you have any specific questions that you need answered, please let me know prior to the meeting so that

I can make sure that we address them. The agenda could consist of the following:

· Introductions · General project description · Operating scenarios · Application completeness determination · Timing/process of permit application review

· DEWT · Stack Testing

Please let me know your thoughts on these issues.

Thanks,

Katie Maness Sr. Staff EHS Representative Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

832

- 636

- 2582

From: Land.Eva@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Land.Eva@epamail.epa.gov ]

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:42 PM

To: Maness, Katie Subject: RE: Meeting with EPA

Great, looking forward to it.

Eva Land

Air Permits Section

EPA

- Region 4

61 Forsyth St., SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404

- 562

- 9103



### Anadarko Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission
and any

### attached documents or other writings are intended only for the

person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information

that is
privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.
If you
have received this communication in error, please immediately
notify
sender by return e

- mail and destroy the communication. Any

di sclosure,
copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the

contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than

the
named recipient is strictly prohibited.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAUL ARELLANO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

E. OJEDA, Correctional Sergeant; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55222

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-02401-MMAJLB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Raul Arellano appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his health and safety arising from allegedly unsanitary conditions. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v.

FILED

NOV 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A);

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We reverse and remand.

In the operative second amended complaint, Arellano alleged that the toilet

in his solitary confinement cell clogged and overflowed for a period of several

days, and defendants failed adequately to address the sanitation issue, thereby

exhibiting deliberate indifference. These allegations, taken as true, were

“sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman,

680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

847 (1994) (“[A] prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment

for denying humane conditions of confinement . . . if he knows that [inmate faces]

a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take

reasonable measures to abate it.”); Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310,

1314 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[S]ubjection of a prisoner to lack of sanitation that is severe

or prolonged can constitute an infliction of pain within the meaning of the Eighth

Amendment.”). Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s dismissal for failure to

state a claim and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2 16-55222
# C_2016040EN.01000201.xml

| 3.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 40/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 40/2

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

0,05 % on 1 February 2016

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

2 February 2016

(2016/C 40/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0919 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,84 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4628 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,75860 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3437 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1147 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5223 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,026 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,65 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4055 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5140 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2237 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5475 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5292 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4996 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6839 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5586 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 322,58 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,5788 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1847 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6675 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 945,11 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6020 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,256 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 86,3711 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,035 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3565 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,0265 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,2325 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0919

JPY

Japanese yen

131,84

DKK

Danish krone

7,4628

GBP

Pound sterling

0,75860

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3437

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1147

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5223

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,026

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,65

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4055

RON

Romanian leu

4,5140

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2237

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5475

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5292

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4996

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6839

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5586

KRW

South Korean won

1 322,58

ZAR

South African rand

17,5788

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1847

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6675

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 945,11

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6020

PHP

Philippine peso

52,256

RUB

Russian rouble

86,3711

THB

Thai baht

39,035

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3565

MXN

Mexican peso

20,0265

INR

Indian rupee

74,2325

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

2

Source

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

                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 Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. ("Company") Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 ("Report"), the undersigned
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 Company.


Date: June 4, 2007

BY: /S/ ALBERT F. CASE, JR.
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


                                      -45-
<PAGE>


                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 Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. ("Company") Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 ("Report"), the undersigned
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 Company.


Date: June 4, 2007


BY: /S/ DEBI KOKINOS
--------------------
Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.



                                      -46-
# C_2016050EN.01000801.xml

| 10.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/8

---

ESPON EGTC — Invitation for stakeholders to submit proposals for targeted analyses

(2016/C 50/07)

In the framework of the ESPON 2020 Single Operation, the ESPON EGTC invites Stakeholders to submit proposals for targeted analyses.

The closing date for the submission of proposals is 9 March 2016.

9 March 2016.

The application form and a guidance document to support stakeholders in preparing proposals are available for download at the ESPON Website: http://www.espon.eu

---
lbuy_ex47.htm

EXHIBIT 4.7
  
  
  
  
 	 
	1
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	2
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	3
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	4
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	5
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	6
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	7
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	8
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	9
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	10
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	11
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	12
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	13
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	14
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	15
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	16
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	17