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:

A21A1049. TRENT PYE v. JACKSON HARRIS.

A jury found Trent Pye guilty of rape and other crimes; this Court affirmed the

convictions and the denial of his motion for new trial. See Pye v. State, 322 Ga. App.

125 (742 SE2d 770) (2013). On September 30, 2020, acting pro se, Pye filed in the

Superior Court of Cherokee County a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against the trial

judge and a request to proceed in forma pauperis. In an order entered on October 14,

2020, the trial court denied the filing of the pleading “based on the [c]ourt’s

determination that the pleading shows on its face such a complete absence of any

justiciable issue of law or fact that it cannot be reasonably believed that the [c]ourt

could grant any relief against any party named in the pleading.” See OCGA § 9-15-2

(d). Pye filed a notice of appeal on November 17, 2020.

1 We lack jurisdiction for two

reasons. 

First, while judgments and orders granting or refusing to grant mandamus are

generally directly appealable, see OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (7), under the Prison Litigation

Reform Act, any appeal in a civil case initiated by a prisoner must come by

discretionary application. See OCGA § 42-12-8; Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489,

490 (480 SE2d 24) (1997). Because Pye is incarcerated, he was required to file an

application for discretionary appeal to seek review of the trial court’s order.

“Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v.

1 Pye filed the notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of Georgia, but that Court

transferred the case to this Court, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction

over the appeal. See Case No. S21A0539 (decided Jan. 11, 2021). 

March 10, 2021
Dept. of Human Res., 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Pye’s failure to

follow the proper appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Second, even if Pye had a right of direct appeal, this appeal is untimely. A

notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the entry of the trial court’s order.

OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute

requirement to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. Couch v. United Paperworkers

Intl. Union, 224 Ga. App. 721, 721 (482 SE2d 704) (1997);see Rowland v. State, 264

Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Pye filed his notice of appeal 34 days after

the trial court entered the order he wishes to appeal.

For these reasons, this appeal 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.

03/10/2021
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report  dated March 16, 2004, accompanying  the  consolidated
financial  statements included in the Annual Report of WebFinancial  Corporation
and  Subsidiaries  on Form  10-KSB/A for the year ended  December  31, 2003.  We
hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  of  said  report  in the
Registration Statement of WebFinancial  Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form S-8
(File No. 33-335606, effective April 26, 2000).

/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP

Salt Lake City, Utah
June 29, 2004
```
#### Jordan Patterson Am. Leg. Post No. 319 v. Quality Contractors

111,418

02/09/2016

Denied.

Unpublished
[Exhibit 10.3]


                       Consent of Director


June 24, 2003



Gentlemen:

I hereby consent to the use of my name in the registration of the
securities of Link Plus Corp. (Tax ID. # 52-1018174).

Sincerely,



/s/Donald C. Kolasch
6899 McLean Province Circle
Falls Church, VA  22043
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         986,329
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  629,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               161,502
<PP&E>                                      22,619,434
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,913,769
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,581,472
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,085,977
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,364
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,569,992)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,581,472
<SALES>                                     21,045,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,045,778
<CGS>                                       19,037,649
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,037,649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (1,168,641)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             386,803
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,789,967
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,789,967
<DISCONTINUED>                                 168,889
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,958,856
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.32
        

</TABLE>
#### State v. Simmons

107,559

11/20/13

Denied.

Unpublished
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-91]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Product, Establishment, and Biologics License Applications, 
Refusal to File; Meeting of Oversight Committee; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice 
that appeared in the Federal Register of December 19, 1996 (61 FR 
67020). The document announced a meeting of the FDA standing oversight 
committee in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) 
that conducts a periodic review of CBER's use of its refusal to file 
(RTF) practices on product license applications, establishment license 
applications, and biologics license applications. The agency 
inadvertently omitted two sentences. This document corrects that error.

DATES: The meeting will be held on January 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy A. Cavagnaro, Center for Biologics 
Evaluation and Research (HFM-4), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-594-3079.

    In FR Doc. 96-32272, appearing on page 67020 in the Federal 
Register of Thursday, December 19, 1996, the following correction is 
made: On page 67020, in the 2d column, under the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION caption, in the 3d paragraph, in the 11th line, the 
sentences ``If there are no RTF decisions to review, however, the 
meeting may be cancelled. Publication of any meeting cancellation will 
be made only as time permits.'' are added at the end of the paragraph.

    Dated: December 23, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 97-91 Filed 1-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
No. 12-225.

#### Williams *v.*McEwen, Acting Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 10.3



                               Company Letterhead


                                  May 28, 2004

Mr. Claude R. Aubert
4144 Lake Oconee Drive
Buford, GA 30519

Dear Claude:

With the change in your duties and  responsibilities  to that of Vice President,
Technical Sales, your salary is, hereby, changed as follows:

Beginning  June 27 and on July 25,  August  22 and  October 3  thereafter,  your
salary,  calculated  on an annual basis,  shall be reduced by the  equivalent of
$5,000 per annum, reducing your annual salary from $100,000 currently to $80,000
as of October 3, 2004.

In accordance  with the foregoing,  your salary,  paid every two weeks, is then:

               $3,653.85 effective June 27,
               $3,461.54 effective July 25,
               $3,269.23 effective August 22, and
               $3,076.92 effective October 3, 2004.

To indicate your  understanding  and  acceptance of these  changes,  please sign
where indicated  hereafter.  {If my duties and  responsibilities are changing in
the future back to  technology,  I am  expecting an  adjustment  to the original
annual salary. CA}

Sincerely,                         Acknowledged and accepted:

EMPLOYER                           EMPLOYEE


/S/ SUELING WANG                   /S/ CLAUDE R. AUBERT
_______________________            _______________________
Sueling Wang, Phd                  Claude R. Aubert
President





1794045
# C_2019050EN.01000102.xml

| 8.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9240 — Siemens Project Ventures/Veja Mate Offshore Project)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 50/02)

On 31 January 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9240. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9240. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3511

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Bruce Barresse, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 16, 1998

Filed: April 24, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In Bruce Barresse’s plea agreement, the government promised to move for a

substantial assistance downward departure if he provided “truthful information, complete

cooperation, truthful testimony and assistance.” At sentencing, the government refused

to file that motion, and Barresse moved to compel compliance with the plea agreement

or permit him to withdraw his plea of guilty to a drug trafficking conspiracy offense. The

district court denied that motion because the question of substantial assistance is within

the government’s discretion, and Barresse appealed the resulting sentence. Noting that

the term “complete cooperation” may connote doing all one can do to assist, rather than

doing enough to satisfy the government, we
The HONORABLE CHARLES A. SHAW, United States District Judge for the 1

Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

remanded for further consideration of what the parties meant by complete cooperation

and whether Barresse met that condition as construed. United States v. Barresse, 115

F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 1997).

On remand, the district court heard testimony by the Assistant United States

1

Attorney and the attorney for Barresse who negotiated the plea agreement. After hearing

arguments of counsel, the court found: (i) the plea agreement reflected the parties’

agreement that the government would file a downward departure motion if Barresse

provided “complete cooperation,” even if the government did not believe his cooperation

amounted to “substantial assistance”; (ii) the agreement is valid and enforceable even

if the parties had different expectations as to what compliance would produce in the way

of cooperation or assistance; and (iii) Barresse did not provide complete cooperation for

two reasons -- he ignored a reasonable government request to stay out of Reynolds

County, Missouri, where there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest, and his

subsequent arrest and incarceration in Reynolds County prevented him from doing all

he could to assist the government in apprehending and prosecuting other drug traffickers.

Based upon these findings, the district court again denied Barresse’s motion to compel

compliance or withdraw the plea. Barresse appeals. After careful review of the remand

hearing transcript, we conclude that the above findings are not clearly erroneous and the

motion was therefore properly denied. Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2019219EN.01000801.xml

| 1.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/8

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9294 — BMS/Celgene)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 219/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, (‘BMS’, United States), |
| --- | --- |

—

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, (‘BMS’, United States),

| — | Celgene Corporation (‘Celgene’, United States). |
| --- | --- |

—

Celgene Corporation (‘Celgene’, United States).

BMS acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Celgene.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | BMS is a global pharmaceutical company headquartered in the United States. BMS is engaged in the development and commercialisation of innovative medicines in four main therapeutic areas: oncology, autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and fibrotic diseases; |
| --- | --- |

—

BMS is a global pharmaceutical company headquartered in the United States. BMS is engaged in the development and commercialisation of innovative medicines in four main therapeutic areas: oncology, autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and fibrotic diseases;

| — | Celgene is a global pharmaceutical company headquartered in the United States. Celgene is engaged primarily in the development and commercialisation of innovative therapies in oncology and autoimmune diseases. |
| --- | --- |

—

Celgene is a global pharmaceutical company headquartered in the United States. Celgene is engaged primarily in the development and commercialisation of innovative therapies in oncology and autoimmune diseases.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9294 — BMS/Celgene

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| --- |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
File 12: District Chilled Water 
                                 (CBECS89.A12)
 
Ques-
tion-
naire   Variable                                  Variable   Variable  Variable
item    Description                               Name       Position  Format  

CASEID  Building identifier                       BLDGID4      1-   5
        Census region                             REGION4      7-   7  $REGION.
        Census division                           CENDIV4      9-   9  $CENDIV.
B2      Square footage                            SQFTC4      11-  12  $SQFTC.
        Principal building activity               PBA4        14-  15  $ACTIVTY.
F3      Year construction was completed           YRCONC4     17-  18  $YRCONC.
        Adjusted weight                           ADJWT4      20-  27
        Variance stratum                          STRATUM4    29-  30
        Pair indicator                            PAIR4       32-  32
        Electricity supplied                      ELSUPL4     34-  34  $XXSUPL.
        Natural gas supplied                      NGSUPL4     36-  36  $XXSUPL.
        Fuel oil supplied                         FKSUPL4     38-  38  $XXSUPL.
        Steam supplied                            STSUPL4     40-  40  $XXSUPL.
        Hot water supplied                        HWSUPL4     42-  42  $XXSUPL.
        Annual chilled water consmp. (ton-hours)  CWCNS4      44-  55  COMMA15.
        Annual chilled water expenditures         CWEXP4      57-  65  COMMA11.
N-2     How district chilled water is billed      CWBLTYP4    67-  67  $BILTYP.
N-5     District chilled water bill coverage      CWCOVER4    69-  69  $COVER.
        Chilled water aggregated/disaggregated    CWDSAG4     71-  71  $DISAGG.
        Billed for district chilled water         CWBILD4     73-  73  $YESNO.
        Heat/cool plant, chilled water bldg.      CWPLNT4     75-  75  $YESNO.
        Days of chilled water shifted from CY89   CWSHFT4     77-  80
        Annual major fuel consumption (mBtu)      MFBTU4      82-  95  COMMA18.
        Annual major fuel expenditures            MFEXP4      97- 105  COMMA11.
        Chilled water consumption imputation      ZCWCNS4    107- 107  $ZCNSEXP.
        Chilled water expenditures imputation     ZCWEXP4    109- 109  $ZCNSEXP.
        <50% major fuel consumption imputed       ZMFBTU4    111- 111  $YESNO.
        <50% major fuel expenditures imputed      ZMFEXP4    113- 113  $YESNO.
No. 12-5494.

#### Rosales-Trujillo *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### State v. Ragsdale

108,663

108,664

10/30/13

Denied.

Unpublished
October 9, 2012

No. 11-1448.

#### United States *v.*Samish Indian Nation.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment with respect to all *937matters relating to respondent’s Revenue Sharing Act claim vacated, and case remanded with instructions to dismiss that claim as moot. See *United States*v. *Munsingwear, Inc.,*340 U. S. 36 (1950).
Exhibit 31.2
 
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 DATE: August 6, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Herm RosenmanHerm RosenmanSenior Vice President, Finance
andChief Financial Officer
Order entered July 3, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00454-CV

SHAHRAM MOTLAGH D/B/A UNITED AUTO FINANCE GROUP, Appellant

V.

AUCTION CREDIT ENTERPRISES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-01381

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s July 2, 2019 motion to reset the deadline for its brief on 

the merits. In the motion, appellant informs the Court that the reporter’s record filed on June 17, 

2019 does not include the exhibits admitted at trial. We GRANT the motion as follows. We 

ORDER Marcey Poeckes, Official Court Reporter for the 298th Judicial District Court, to file, 

by July 15, 2019, a supplemental reporter’s record containing the exhibits admitted at trial.

Appellant’s brief on the merits will be due within thirty days after the supplemental 

reporter’s record is filed.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order Ms. Poeckes and all 

parties.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE