alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S95A0302.

#### GRANT v. GAINES.

(454 SE2d 481)

Carley, Justice.

In this mandamus action, Judge Joseph J. Gaines is the trial judge who presided over a jury trial which resulted in a verdict awarding Grant monetary damages in a principal amount. Although Grant requested that the judgment include an award of pre-judgment interest, the judge refused this request and entered judgment only in the principal amount awarded by the jury.

Thereafter, the judgment debtor tendered to Grant the full amount of the existing judgment and accrued post-judgment interest. Grant accepted this tender, but then filed a notice of appeal so as to raise the issue of her entitlement to an additional recovery of prejudgment interest. The judge dismissed Grant’s notice of appeal, as well as two subsequent notices of appeal. In dismissing the third notice of appeal, the judge ordered the clerk of the trial court not to accept any further notices of appeal submitted for filing by Grant. Nevertheless, Grant attempted to file a fourth notice of appeal, which, in accordance with the order, was not accepted for filing.

Grant then filed a petition for mandamus, seeking to compel the judge to allow her to proceed with the proposed appeal as to her entitlement to an additional recovery of pre-judgment interest. The action was heard by another judge of the superior court who entered sin order refusing to grant the writ of mandamus. It is from that order that Grant now appeals.

Having already accepted the judgment debtor’s tender of the full amount of the existing judgment, Grant seeks also to pursue the right to appeal on the ground that the amount of the existing judgment is not sufficient. This she cannot do. *Coley v. Coley,*128 Ga. 654, 655-656 (1) (58 SE 205) (1907). Accordingly, Grant’s appeal was subject to dismissal. *Coley v. Coley,*supra; *Owens v. Read Phosphate Co.,*115 Ga. 768 (42 SE 62) (1902); *J & F Car Care Svc. v. Russell Corp.,*166 Ga. App. 888 (305 SE2d 504) (1983).

The judge was authorized to dismiss Grant’s appeal. *Attwell v. Lane Co.,*182 Ga. App. 813, 814 (1) (357 SE2d 142) (1987). It follows that the act of dismissing Grant’s notice of appeal would not constitute the “improper performance” of an official duty. OCGA § 9-6-20. Because Grant had no “clear legal right” to compel the judge to allow her to pursue her unauthorized appeal, the trial court correctly refused to grant mandamus. See *McClure v. Hightower,*237 Ga. 157 (227 SE2d 47) (1976).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*160Decided March 13, 1995.

*Ronald S. Iddins,*for appellant.

*Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Stephanie B. Manis, Deputy Attorney General, Thomas K. Bond, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.
# C_2018359EN.01000901.xml

| 5.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/9

---

Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU

Request made by a contracting entity — end of suspension of deadline

(2018/C 359/07)

On 1 March 2018 the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 2 March 2018.

This request is made by Finavia Oyj and concerns activities relating to the provision of businesses premises for commercial actors providing commercial services (duty free, retail, food and beverages and other passenger services) for flight passengers at Helsinki airport’s terminals in Finland. The relevant notice was published on page 21 of OJ C 114 on 28 March 2018. The initial deadline was 3 October 2018.

Pursuant to Annex IV, point 2, of Directive 2014/25/EU, the Commission may require the Member State or the contracting entity concerned or the competent independent national authority or any other competent national authority to provide all necessary information or to supplement or clarify information given within an appropriate time limit. On 23 April 2018 the Commission asked the Finnish Authorities to provide additional information by 7 May 2018 at the latest. The reply of the Finnish authorities was received on 18 May 2018.

In the event of late or incomplete answers, the initial deadline shall be suspended for 6 working days (the period between the expiry of the time limit set in the request for information, and the receipt of the complete and correct information).

On 29 June 2018 the Commission asked the Applicant to provide additional information by 3 July 2018 at the latest. The Applicant asked for additional time in order to provide the reply, which was received on 31 August 2018. The deadlines available to the Commission to adopt a decision was prolonged by additional 42 working days (the period between the expiry of the time limit set in the request for information, and the receipt of the complete and correct information).

The final deadline therefore expires on 12 December 2018.

---

(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 04, 2014. 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, September 04, 2014 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A14A2344. BOWMAN AND BOWMAN, INC. et al. v. STATE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                                                          Jurisdiction  
             Name (l, 2)                                of Incorporation
   -----------------------------------                  ---------------- 

   Advanced Resin Technology, Inc. (3)                    New Hampshire
   REFAC International, Ltd.                              Nevada       
    REFAC Biochemics Corporation (4)                      Delaware     
    REFAC Financial Corporation                           Delaware      
   Selective Licensing & Promotion, Ltd. (5)              Delaware

 (1) The Consolidated Financial Statements, included herein, include the
     accounts of the Registrant and all of the above subsidiaries.

 (2) Subsidiaries of subsidiaries are indented.

 (3) The Company owned approximately 87% and 93% of the outstanding capital
     stock of Advanced Resin Technology, Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and 1998,
     respectively.  This subsidiary is inactive and is in the process of being
     liquidated.

 (4) The Company owned approximately 92% of the outstanding capital stock of
     REFAC Biochemics Corporation as of December 31, 1998.

 (5) The Company owned approximately 81% of the outstanding capital stock of
     Selective Licensing & Promotion, Ltd. as of December 31, 1998.
# C_2018139EN.01000701.xml

| 20.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/7

---

Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

(2018/C 139/05)

The following information is brought to the attention of IRGC Brigadier-General Javad DARVISH-VAND (no. 1), IRGC Brigadier-General Mohammad Reza NAQDI (no. 8), Mr. Rostam QASEMI (no. 10) and IRGC Brigadier-General Amir Ali Haji ZADEH (no. 19), persons appearing in the Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Iran.

1

2

The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons with new statements of reasons. Those persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statements of reasons for their designation, before 27 April 2018, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received before 11 May 2018 will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council's periodic review.

---

(1)  OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.

1

(2)  OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1.

2

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 14156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7467]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Submitted for Collection of Public Comment: Submission for OMB 
Review

    In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing 
Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, has 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following 
proposals for the collection of information. Interested persons are 
invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other 
aspect of this collection of information, including any of the 
following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed 
information collection for the proper performance of the agency's 
functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of information technology to minimize the information collection 
burden.
    1. Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; 
Title of Information Collection: Statistical Report on Medical Care: 
Eligibles, Recipients, Payments and Services; Form No.: HCFA-2082; Use: 
The data reported in the HCFA-2082 are the basis of actuarial forecasts 
for Medicaid service utilization and costs; of analysis and cost 
savings estimates required for legislative initiatives relating to 
Medicaid and for responding to requests for information from HCFA 
components, the Department, Congress and other customers; Frequency: 
Annually; Affected Public: State, local, or tribal government; Number 
of Respondents: 54; Total Annual Responses: 54; Total Annual Hours: 
17,214.
    To request copies of the proposed paperwork collection referenced 
above, E-mail your request, including your address, to 
P<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2849584d5a5f475a4368404b4e49064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e0f1e0b1c19011c052e060d080f40090118">[email protected]</span></a>, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-
1326. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collections should be sent within 30 days of this notice directly to 
the OMB Desk Officer designated at the following address: OMB Human 
Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Allison Eydt, New Executive 
Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 20503.

    Dated: March 17, 1997.
Edwin J. Glatzel,
Director, Management Analysis and Planning Staff, Office of Financial 
and Human Resources, Health Care Financing Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-7467 Filed 3-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-03-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1893-1894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-853]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meetings:

    Name of SEP: Maintenance of a Biological Specimen Repository.
    Date: February 4, 1997.
    Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20814.
    Contact Person: Diane M. Reid, M.D., Two Rockledge Center, Room 
7182, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, (301) 435-0277.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    This notice is being published less than fifteen days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.

    Name of SEP: Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center.
    Date: May 12-14, 1997.
    Time: 8:00 a.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20814.
    Contact Person: Deborah P. Beebe, Ph.D., Two Rockledge Center, 
Room 7178, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, (301) 435-
0270.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    These meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could

[[Page 1894]]

reveal confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of 
which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal 
privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Nos. 93.837, Heart 
and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; and 
93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes 
of Health)

    Dated: January 9, 1997.
Paula N. Hayes,
Acting Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-853 Filed 1-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
No. 12-5400.

#### Lenoir *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0**
**- 6426** 

EVERETTE ATKINSON ,

P etitioner

– Appell ant ,

v.

DARLENE DREW , Respondent

– Appell ee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South C arolina , at Beaufort

. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 9 : 0 9

- c v
- 0 32 1 9

- TLW )

Submitted : September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010

Before NIEMEYER , AGEE, a nd KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirme d by un published per curiam opinion

.

Everette Atkins on , Appellant Pro Se

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Everett e Atkinson , a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and d ismissing without pre judice Atkinson’s 28

U.S.C. A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Atkinson v. Drew ,
No. 9:09

- cv
- 03219

- TLW (D.S.C. Mar. 11, 2010) . We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## In **T he**  **Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo** 

No. 07

- 22

- 00300

- CR

GERALD ANTHONY MORGAN , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 78th District Court Wichita County, Texas 1 Trial Court No
. DC78

- CR2020

- 0381 , Honorable Meredith Kennedy , Presiding 

### March 6 , 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Appellant , Gerald Anthony Morgan, appeals his conviction for invasive visual recording 2 and sentence to one hundred and eighty days confinement in a state jail facility. Appellant ’ s brief w as due January 2 6, 2023, but was not filed

. By letter of February 2, 2023 , we notified Appellant’s appointed counsel that the brief was overdue

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalizations efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.

2 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 21.15.2 and admonished him that failure to file a brief by February 13 would result in the appea l be ing abated and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Appellant’s counsel has not filed a brief or had any further communication with this Court to date. We, therefore, abate th e appea l and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(b)(2), (3). Upon remand, the trial court shall determine the following: ( 1 ) wh ether A ppellant still desires to prosecute the appeal; ( 2 ) whether A ppellant is indigent; ( 3 ) why a timely appellate brief has not been filed on behalf of A ppellant; ( 4 ) whether A ppellant ’ s counsel has abandoned the appeal; ( 5 ) whether A ppellant ha s been denied the effective assistance of counsel; ( 6 ) whether new counsel should be appointed; and ( 7 ) if appellant desires to continue the appeal, the date the C ourt may expect A ppellant ’ s brief to be filed. The trial court is also directed to enter such orders necessary to address the aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a supplemental record and cause that record to be filed with this C ourt by April 5 , 2023

. I f it is determined that A ppellant desires to proceed with the appeal, is indigent, and has been denied the effective assistance of counsel, the trial court may appoint new counsel; the name, address, email address, phone number, and state bar number of any newly appointed counsel shall be included in the aforementioned findings.3 Should counsel file a brief on or before March 20 , 2023, he is directed to immediately notify the trial court of the filing, in writing, whereupon the trial court shall not be requ ired to take any further action. It is so ordered. Per Curiam Do not publish.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.4
  EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN
    Definitions




---



##### 



Supplemental Pension
 2.1
    
    Normal Retirement.
  (1)
    
    the Executives accrued
benefit in the Qualified Plan, determined in accordance
with the provisions of the Qualified Plan as in effect
on that date, but assuming, for purposes of this
computation, that (i) Sections 415 and 401(a)(17) of the
Code had not been enacted; and (ii) Credited Service is
determined in accordance with Exhibit A to this Plan;reduced by(2)
    
    the Executives accrued benefit
in the Qualified Plan determined in accordance with the
provisions of the Qualified Plan as in effect on that date.
  (1)
    
    the Executives accrued
benefit in the Qualified Plan, determined in accordance
with the provisions of the Qualified Plan as in effect
on that date, but assuming for purposes of this
computation that (i) Sections 415 and 401(a)(17) of the
Code has not be enacted; and (2) his final account
balance is multiplied by the percentage listed for the
Executive in accordance with Exhibit B to this Plan;reduced by(2)
    
    the Executives accrued
benefit in the Qualified Plan determined in accordance
with the provisions of the Qualified Plan as in effect
on that date.
  2




---



##### 



Early Retirement
 Disability
 Death
 Termination for Other Reasons
 3




---



##### 



Form and Timing of Supplemental Benefit Payment
  Risk of Forfeiture
    4




---



##### 



Administration
   Nature of Benefits
   General Provisions
 Non-Alienation of Benefits
 Taxes
 Amendment; Termination
 Non-duplication
 Successor; Binding Agreement
 5




---



##### 



substantial part of the Companys business and (b) employs a substantial number of the
Companys employees, the successor will be substituted for the Company under this Plan. The
Company will require any successor (whether direct or indirect, by purchase, merger, consolidation
or otherwise) to all or substantially all of the business or assets of the Company, by agreement in
form and substance reasonably satisfactory to Executive, to expressly assume and agree to perform
this Plan in the same manner and to the same extent that the Company would be required to perform
it if no such succession had taken place.
 Applicable Law
 Plan Not a Contract of Employment
 Claims Procedure
     6




---



##### 



ROBBINS & MYERS, INC.By:Title:
 7




---



##### 



ExecutiveDate:
 EXHIBIT A
   Daniel Duval
    
    
    150
    %Gerald L. Connelly
    
    
    150
    %George M. Walker
    
    
    130
    %Hugh E. Becker
    
    
    130
    %Kevin J. Brown
    
    
    130
    %
   EXHIBIT B
   Milton Hernandez
    
    
    130
    %Peter C. Wallace
    
    
    150
    %Saeid Rahimian
    
    
    130
    %John R. Beatty
    
    
    130
    %
 8