alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 D0 40 2 . BOAZ YEHI EL BADI CHI v . ALBI ON TRADI NG I NC., et a l

.

Bo az Yeh i e l B a d i c h i s eek s d i s cret i o nary rev i ew of t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s g ran t o f

p art i al su m

m ary ju d g m en t t o A l b i o n Trad i n g , In c., SBS 3 8 4

, LLC, SBS 27 6

, LLC,

an d SBS Ho ld i n g s at T al l Pi n es Ap art m en t s, LLC i n t hi s act i o n fo r eq u i t ab l e p art i t i o n

an d acco u n t i n g

. W e t ran s ferred t h e ap p l icat io n t o th e Su prem e Co u rt

, w h i ch ret u rn ed

i t to u s o n J u l y 1 2, 20 1 6

, aft er co n cl u d in g t hat i t d i d n o t h av e ju ri s d i ct io n

. Th e

ap p el l ees ’ m o t i o n fo r reco n s i d erat i o n , wh i ch s o u g h t t h e ret urn of t h e ap peal t o t h i s

Co u rt , i s t h erefo re DENIED AS M OOT.

Th e g ran t o f part i al s u m

m ary ju d g m en t m ay b e d irect l y ap p eal ed

. See OCGA

§ 9 -1 1 -5 6 (h ); see al s o W h i d d o n v. S t a r g el l

, 1 9 2 Ga. Ap p

. 8 2 6, 8 2 8 (3 8 6 SE2 d 8 8 4 )
( 1 9 8 9 ). Un d er OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j), t h i s co u rt wi l l gran t an o t h erwi s e t i m el y

d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat i o n i f t h e l o wer co u rt ’ s o rd er i s su b ject t o d i rect ap p eal

. Acco rd in g ly

, t h is ap p l i cat i on is h ereb y GRANTED. Th e d efen dan t s s h al l h av e 1 0

d ay s fro m th e d at e o f t h i s o rd er t o fi l e a n o t i ce o f ap peal wi t h t h e s up eri o r co u rt

, i f

t h ey hav e n o t al read y d o n e so

. Th e s u p eri o r co u rt cl erk i s i n s t ru ct ed t o i n cl u d e a co py

o f t h i s o rd er i n t he ap p el l at e reco rd

.
C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t if y t h a t th e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/10/2016 August 10, 2016
SCPW

- 2 0

- 0000522

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

________________________________________________________________

GREGORY WILLIAMSON , Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE JAMES H. ASHFORD , Judge of the Circuit Court of

the First Circuit , Respondent Judge ,

and

ALLIANCE PERSONNEL, INC. , Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ( CIV. NO. 13

- 1

- 1840 )

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ. and Circuit Judge Johnson, assigned by reason of vacancy )

Upon consideration of the “Emergency Supplement Notification Addition to the Emergency Third Supplement Mandamus
Writ to the Emergency Non

- Hearing Motion of August 25, 2020,”

which was filed as a petition for writ of mandamus on October
24, 2022, the documents attached and submitted in support, and
the record, Petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and
indisputable right to relief from this court. See Kema v.

Gaddis , 91 Hawai ʻ i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999)

.
Mo reover, Judgment in Civil No. 13

- 1

- 1840 was filed on
December 15, 2015, and Petitioner did not file an appeal of that
Judgment. The first petition for writ of mandamus in this Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000522 04-NOV-2022 01:58 PM Dkt. 27 ODDP2

original proceeding was denied by order filed on September 4,

2020. Approximately nine months later, on June 15, 202 1 , Petitioner submitted another document that was filed as a second
petition for writ of mandamus in this same original proceeding.
This second petition was denied by order filed on June 17, 2021. Approxima tely one year later, Petitioner filed the subject third
petition for writ of mandamus, which this court denies by this

order. This original proceeding is closed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDER ED that the appellate clerk shall process the petition without payment of the filing fee.

IT IS HEREBY FINALLY ORDERED tha t the appellate clerk’s office shall not accept any further filings in this
closed proceeding.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, November 4, 2022.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Ronald G. Johnso n
**APPENDIX VI**

**METHOD 315 ANALYTICAL REPORT**
<PAGE>


                                                                     Exhibit 2.7


                              CERTIFICATE OF MERGER
                                       OF
                       UNITED SHIPPING & TECHNOLOGY, INC.
                              (a Utah corporation)
                                      into
                          VELOCITY EXPRESS CORPORATION
                            (a Delaware corporation)


     The undersigned corporation, organized and existing under the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify that:

     1. United Shipping & Technology, Inc. ("United Shipping") is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Utah.

     2. Velocity Express Corporation ("Velocity") is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.

     3. An Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") has been
approved, adopted, certified, executed and acknowledged by each constituent
corporation in accordance with Section 252 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware.

     4. The name of the surviving corporation is Velocity Express Corporation.

     5. The certificate of incorporation of Velocity as in effect on the date of
the merger shall be the certificate of incorporation of the surviving
corporation.

     6. The executed Agreement and Plan of Merger is on file at the principal
place of business of Velocity at 7803 Glenroy Road, Suite 200, Bloomington,
Minnesota 55439. A copy of the Agreement and Plan of Merger will be furnished by
Velocity upon request and without cost, to any stockholder of Velocity or
shareholder of United Shipping.

     7. The authorized capital stock of United Shipping & Technology is
200,000,000 shares. The issued and outstanding capital stock of United Shipping
is as follows: 17,271,399 shares of Common Stock, par value $0.004 per share,
2,806,797 shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.004 par
value per share, 2,000,000 shares of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock, par
value $0.004 par value per share, 1,894,873 shares of Series D Convertible
Preferred Stock, par value $0.004 per share and 1,072,722 shares of Series F
Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.004 per share.

     8. This Certificate of Merger shall become effective on January 4, 2002.

<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the surviving corporation has caused this certificate
to be executed as of the 4th day of January, 2002.

                                       VELOCITY EXPRESS CORPORATION


                                       By: /s/ Wesley C. Fredenburg
                                           -------------------------------------
                                       Office: Secretary
                                               ---------------------------------
Document has been coded “B” May be requested under the Freedom of Information Act Http:// www.epa/pesticide/foia or contact the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory D ocket at (703) 305

- 5805

. A ccess is restricted to entities not engaged in the production sale or distribution of pesticides outside the United States
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                     --------------------------------------

         I,  Elwin D.  Cathcart,  Principal Accounting  Officer  and  Principal
Executive Officer of VHS Network, Inc., hereby certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of VHS Network,
Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge,  this  Quarterly  report does not contain any
untrue  statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary
to make the  statements  made,  in light of the  circumstances  under which such
statements  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

         4.  I  am  responsible  for  establishing  and  maintaining  disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and I have:

                  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

                  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and  procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  (c) presented in this annual report my  conclusions  about the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. I  have  disclosed,  based  on my  most  recent  evaluation,  to the
registrant's  auditors  and to the  audit  committee  of  registrant's  board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

                  (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal  controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                  (b)  any  fraud,  whether  or  not  material,   that  involves
management or other  employees who have a significant  role in the  registrant's
internal controls; and

         6. I have  indicated  in this annual  report  whether or not there were
significant  changes  in  internal  controls  or in  other  factors  that  could
significantly  affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
evaluation,   including  any  corrective  actions  with  regard  to  significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: June 3, 2003

/s/ Elwin D. Cathcart
-------------------------------------
By: Elwin D. Cathcart
Title: Principal Accounting Officer
and Principal Executive Officer
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

CARMEN CARTER,

Plaintiff,

§

§

§

§

v. § Case No. 1:17-cv-00755-MRB

§

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., §

§

Defendant. §

NOTICE OF PENDING SETTLEMENT

Defendant, Transworld Systems, Inc. (“TSI”), by and through its undersigned

counsel, hereby submits this Notice of Pending Settlement and states that TSI and Plaintiff

have reached a settlement with regard to this case and are presently drafting, finalizing,

and executing the settlement and dismissal documents. Upon execution of the same, TSI

and Plaintiff will file the appropriate dismissal documents with the Court.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ R. Glenn Knirsch

R. Glenn Knirsch (OH Bar # 0080770)

Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, LLC

2647 Eaton Road

University Heights, OH 44118

Telephone: (216) 331-1308

Facsimile: (216) 220-4937

Email: rgknirsch@sessions.legal

Attorney for Defendant,

Transworld Systems, Inc.

Case: 1:17-cv-00755-MRB Doc #: 7 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 124
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on January 17, 2018, a copy of the foregoing was electronically filed

with the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Southern District of

Ohio, and served via CM/ECF upon the following:

Marc E. Dann

Brian D. Flick

The Dann Law Firm Co., L.P.A.

P.O. Box 6031040

Cleveland, OH 44103

Telephone: (216) 373-0539

Facsimile: (216) 373-0536

Email: notices@dannlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ R. Glenn Knirsch

R. Glenn Knirsch (OH Bar # 0080770)

Case: 1:17-cv-00755-MRB Doc #: 7 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 125
### Adams, Kevin (OST)
From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Cc: 

### Subject: Attachments:

Hi, Adams, Kevin (OST) Friday, June 21, 2013 10:50 AM Tatitlek IRA Council/Tribal Administrator Reeve AirAlaska, Mike Reeve; Dan Owen (dan@flyaat.com); Security Aviation, Jason Ward ; Devany, Dennis (OST) Request for Comment on the 2nd Round Proposals at Tatitlek Alaska AirTransit Re-bid 2013.pdf; Security Aviation re-bid 2013.doc; Reeve Re-bid 2013.doc

Attached above are copies ofthethree timely-filed proposals for Essential Air Service (EAS) at Tatitlek. These proposals are directlyfrom the carriers and will soon be reflected in the Docket, which you may access through Regulations.gov, at DOT-OST-2013-0030, along with other pertinent information on this proceeding. Community comments, especially of village officials, are a critically important element in our carrier-selection decision. We ask thatyou get backto us, preferably by email, no laterthan July 1, 2013. We will docketthis email, as well as any replies.
In brief, lookat the proposals, and ifyou have any questions, call any ofthe three carriers or me, and get back to us by the deadline, July 

### 1.

1, ••••: Best,

! ; Kevin Adams Industry Economist 202-366-1047 i I

....

:·.::•.... Notes: 

### 1. Typically we afford communities thirtydays to get back to us with their comments. YesteFd'ay I called Ms. Victoria Vlassoff. She agreed that in view ofthe urgency ofthe case and thefactthis is a re-solicitation of comments, she would be pleased to have a reduced comment period. 2. Some carriers have indicated on their proposalsthe passengerfares and freight rates they intend to charge if theywere selected. Such indications are illustrative only. EAS contracts, when implemented with a carrierselection Order, focus on frequency, routing, aircrafttype, and the level ofsubsidy in their payout provisions. Within those four parameters, the selected carrier has agreat deal ofdiscretion as to how itwill meetthe contract.

1
#### In the Matter of Isadora R. Cheryl F., Respondent. Frezell W., Nonparty Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 96]

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a guardian for the person and property of Isadora R., an alleged incapacitated person, nonparty Frezell Williams, attorney-in-fact and health care proxy for Isadora R., appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered January 24, 2003, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the petition, appointed a guardian for Isadora R.’s personal needs and property, and vacated Frezell Williams’s power of attorney and designation as health care proxy for Isadora R.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs to the appellant, the petition is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in appointing a guardian for Isadora R., an alleged incapacitated person. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that Isadora R. effectuated a plan for the management of her affairs and possessed sufficient resources to protect her well being, thus obviating the need for a guardian over her person or property *(see*Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02; *Matter of Crump,*230 AD2d 850 [1996]; *Matter of O’Hear,*219 AD2d 720 [1995]; *Matter of Maher,*207 AD2d 133 [1994]). There was no evidence that the appellant, a longtime friend of Isadora R., and Isadora R.’s chosen attorney-in-fact and health care proxy, mishandled Isadora R.’s property or that Isadora R.’s health and well-being were harmed by any actions taken by the appellant sufficient to justify revoking the power of attorney and health care proxy in favor of a court-appointed guardian *(cf. Matter of Rochester Gen. Hosp.,*158 Misc 2d 522 [1993]). Further, Isadora R. reaffirmed at the hearing her confidence in the appellant to look after her person and property.

*495Since we are reversing the order and judgment appointing a guardian, it is necessary that the property of Isadora R. still in the possession of the guardian be restored to her *(see*Mental Hygiene Law § 81.36 [e]), that the guardian file a final report and accounting of her management of Isadora R.’s financial affairs *(see*Mental Hygiene Law § 81.33), and that the Supreme Court fix the compensation, if any, of the guardian *(see*Mental Hygiene Law § 81.28), which shall be paid by the petitioner. Upon the conclusion of these proceedings, the guardian should petition for her release and discharge *(see*Mental Hygiene Law § 81.34).

In light of our determination, the appellant’s remaining contentions have been rendered academic. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4267 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to extend whistleblower protections 

to a member of the Armed Forces who alerts Department of Defense 

investigation or law enforcement organizations, a person or organization 

in the member’s chain of command, and certain other persons or entities 

about the potentially dangerous ideologically based threats or actions 

of another member against United States interests or security. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 10, 2009 

Mr. CARTER (for himself, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. WILSON of South 

Carolina, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. OLSON, Mr. CULBERSON, Ms. GRANGER, 

Mr. MCCAUL, and Mr. ADERHOLT) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to extend whistleblower protections to a member of the Armed Forces 

who alerts Department of Defense investigation or law 

enforcement organizations, a person or organization in 

the member’s chain of command, and certain other persons or entities about the potentially dangerous ideologically based threats or actions of another member against 

United States interests or security. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4267 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Whistleblower 

3 Protection Enhancement Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROTECTED COMMUNICATIONS BY MEMBERS OF 

5 THE ARMED FORCES AND PROHIBITION OF 

6 RETALIATORY PERSONNEL ACTIONS. 

7 Section 1034(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code, 

8 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub9 paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(C) Ideologically based threats or actions of 

11 another member that the member providing the in12 formation reasonably believes could be counter13 productive or detrimental to United States interests 

14 or security.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 4, 2022

No. 04-22-00008-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.J.E., a Child

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-EM5-04650

Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants filed a brief with an appendix and a supplemental brief with an appendix. 

Both appendices contain the following documents that are not part of the clerk’s record on 

appeal: (a) Affidavit of Brittney Decole Grady, (b) Affidavit of Sonya Jones, (c) Petitioner’s 

Motion Setting Case on Bexar County Jury Docket, (d) Bexar County Docket Sheet, and (d) 

Bexar County District Clerk Receipt 48931022.

With limited exceptions not relevant here, an appellate court may not consider matters 

outside the appellate record. Fox v. Wardy, 234 S.W.3d 30, 33 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, pet. 

dism’d w.o.j.). Attachment of documents as exhibits or appendices to briefs is not formal 

inclusion in the record on appeal, and we cannot consider such documents. Id. “An appendix is 

not a substitute for a clerk’s record nor are citations to the appendix a substitute for citations to 

the record.” Willms v. Wilson, No. 05–08–01718–CV, 2009 WL 4283109, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Dec. 2, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Appellants are therefore ORDERED to, no later than August 15, 2022, provide written 

proof to this court that (1) a supplemental clerk’s record containing any additional documents on 

which they wish to rely has been requested from the district clerk and (2) the clerk’s fee has been

paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee for the supplemental record.

The district clerk is ORDERED to file the supplemental clerk’s record no later than ten

days from the date appellants request and pay for the supplemental record.

It is so ORDERED on this 4th day of August, 2022.

 PER CURIAM

 ATTESTED TO: ______________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court