alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered May 13, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00242-CV

KEITH HARRELL, Appellant

V.

JARED S. SMITH, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-06220-2021

ORDER

Before the Court is appellees’ May 12, 2022 unopposed motion for an 

extension of time to file their brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time 

to June 2, 2022.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM YEAR ENDED
APRIL 30, 1999 SYNTHETIC BLOOD INTERNATIONAL, INC.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                         193,013
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               253,887
<PP&E>                                         306,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                 245,210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 530,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          602,226
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       553,143
<OTHER-SE>                                   (671,790)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   530,906
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,994
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               837,434
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,395
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (833,835)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (833,835)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
No. 10-10517.

#### Stephen Wayne Norwood, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 839, 132 S. Ct. 148,

181 L. Ed. 2d 65,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5960.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
A17A0986.

#### ANDERSON v. LAUREANO.

(805 SE2d 636)

McFadden, Presiding Judge.

Jameila Anderson appeals the award of OCGA § 9-11-68 costs and attorney fees to Kathleen Laureano. Because the $801.99 award does not meet the statutory threshold of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6) for filing a direct appeal in an action for damages, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. So we must dismiss.

Anderson filed a complaint for damages against Laureano arising out of an automobile collision. Laureano served a written offer to settle the case for $5,500 under OCGA § 9-11-68. The case was not settled and proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury returned a defense verdict. Anderson timely moved for a new trial, and Laureano moved for fees and costs under OCGA § 9-11-68. The trial court entered an order denying Anderson’s motion for new trial and granting Laureano’s motion for fees and costs in the amount of $801.99. Within 30 days, Anderson filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, she challenges only the award of attorney fees and costs.

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6) provides that a party must file an application for discretionary appeal to pursue an appeal “in all actions for damages in which the judgment is $10,000.00 or less[.]” The statute “applies to all judgments for $[10,000] or less that arise from an action for damages. Since the suit filed by [Anderson] was an action for damages and since this judgment was entered in that action, we find inescapable the conclusion that OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6) is applicable.” *Vaughn v. Cable East Point,*185 Ga. App. 203 (363 SE2d 639) (1987) (citation and punctuation omitted).

The fact that the trial court awarded fees in the same order in which the court denied Anderson’s motion for new trial does not save the appeal. Although the denial of a motion for new trial is generally a final judgment directly appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), here Anderson challenges only the $801.99 award of attorney fees and costs. See *Numanovic v. Jones,*321 Ga. App. 763-764 (743 SE2d 450) (2013) (dismissing appeal because appellant enumerated as error ruling that was subject to discretionary appeal procedure, even though order from which notice of appeal was filed was directly appealable). See also *Harpagon Co. v. Davis,*283 Ga. 410, 412 (658 SE2d 633) (2008) (“A judgment on a counterclaim is subject to such discretionary appeal provision, and when it is the focus of the appeal, it maybe evaluated independently from the original complaint for the purpose of applicability of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6).”) (citation omitted). Compare *Motor Fin. Co. v. Davis,*188 Ga. App. 291 (372 SE2d 674) (1988) (in dicta, noting that OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6) does not apply to an *889appeal from a judgment in favor of a defendant, i.e., no recovery for the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s claim).

Decided September 27, 2017.

*Adamson & Cleveland, Kevin A. Adamson,*for appellant.

*Gardner Trial Attorneys, Timothy J. Gardner, April A. Robinson; The Werner Law Firm, Benjamin Z. Levy,*for appellee.

For these reasons, Anderson’s appeal is dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*Branch and Bethel, JJ., concur.*
*DoD 4000.25-7-M, December 2003*

## *DoD 4000.25-7-M, March 2004*

DLM 4000.25, Volume 4, April 11, 2012

**AP2.8. APPENDIX 2.8**

**GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION CUSTOMER SUPPLY CENTER CODES**

1

82

	APPENDIX 2.8

AP2.8-5	APPENDIX 2.8
CA. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

COURTNEY LANGSTON LOWE, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

No. 67505 

FILED 

MAR 1 8 2016 

TRACE 4( UNDEMAN 

CLEROL - UPREME COURT 

By • Yo-1/44---r-e‘ 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING APPEAL 

This appeal was initiated by the filing of a pro se appeal. 

Further review of the document submitted in this case reveals a 

jurisdictional defect. The notice of appeal submitted in this court does not 

bear the file stamp of the district court clerk. Notices of appeal must be 

filed in the district court in the first instance. See NRAP 3(a)(1). 

Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this court to administratively close the 

instant appeal and transmit the notice of appeal to the district court clerk. 

It is so ORDERED. 

cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20 

Courtney Langston Lowe 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPFIEME'COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A ae )4, - 0 3(4 0
No. 10-10926.

#### Oscar Estrada-Landero, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 857, 132 S. Ct. 191,

181 L. Ed. 2d 98,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6183.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 413 Fed. Appx. 121.
A

E5

MODEL 1900D AIRLINER STRUCTURAL INSPECTION MANUAL

LIST OF EFFECTIVE REVISIONS

PART NUMBER DATE CHAPTERS AFFECTED

129-590000-65E Nov 1/07 All (Reissue)

129-590000-65E1 Nov 1/08 Intro, 20, H Check

129-590000-65E2 May 1/09 Intro, 20

129-590000-65E3 May 1, 2010 Introduction, 20

129-590000-65E4 October 1, 2012 Introduction, 20, D1 Check

129-590000-65E5 May 1, 2013 I Check
E5 Page 1 LOEP May 1/13

MODEL 1900D AIRLINER STRUCTURAL INSPECTION MANUAL

Manual Sections

SECTION PAGE DATE

LOEP 1 May 1/13

CONTENTS 1 thru 4 Oct 1/12

20-00-00 1 thru 47 Oct 1/12

“A” Check 1 thru 34 Nov 1/07

“B” Check 1 thru 19 Nov 1/07

“C” Check 1 thru 14 Nov 1/07

“D” Check 1 thru 33 Nov 1/07

“D1” Check 1 thru 8 Oct 1/12

“E” Check 1 thru 20 Nov 1/07

“F” Check 1 thru 9 Nov 1/07

“G” Check 1 thru 9 Nov 1/07

“H” Check 1 thru 4 Nov 1/08

“I” Check 1 thru 14 May 1/13

“A” Check Report 1 Nov 1/07

“B” Check Report 1 Nov 1/07

“C” Check Report 1 Nov 1/07

“D” Check Report 1 Nov 1/07

“D1” Check Report 1 Oct 1/12

“E” Check Report 1 Nov 1/07

“F” Check Report 1 Nov 1/07

“G” Check Report 1 Nov 1/07

“H” Check Report 1 Nov 1/07

“I” Check Report 1 Nov 1/07
B

E5

MODEL 1900D AIRLINER STRUCTURAL INSPECTION MANUAL

List of Effective Pages

Section PAGE DATE

Title Page May 1/13

Logo Page

“A” Page E5

“B” Page E5

INTRODUCTION 1 thru 22 Oct 1/12
No. 10-8042.

#### Felix Alberto Castro-Davis, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1205, 131 S. Ct. 1056,

178 L. Ed. 2d 874,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 953.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Same case below, 612 F.3d 53.
DLM 4000.25-4, June 5, 2012

**DEFENSE AUTOMATIC ADDRESSING SYSTEM**

**FOREWORD**

I.  The Defense Automatic Addressing System (DAAS) manual is reissued as Defense Logistics Manual (DLM) 4000.25-4, under the authority of DoD Instruction (DoDI), 4140.01, DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Policy, December 14, 2011.  DLM 4000.25-4 provides concepts, rules, and procedures for transmission of computer-readable logistics transactions within the DAAS and the International Logistics Communications System (ILCS).  DoD 4000.25-10-M, “Defense Automatic Addressing System,” October 20, 2003, is hereby cancelled.  

II.  The provisions of this manual apply to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, and Defense Agencies.  This manual applies, by agreement, to external organizations conducting logistics business operations with DoD including (a) non-Government organizations, both commercial and nonprofit; (b) Federal agencies of the U.S. Government other than DoD; (c) foreign national governments; and (d) international government organizations.

III.  This Manual is effective immediately; it is mandatory for use by the DoD Components and by agreement to external organizations identified in paragraph II.  Recommended revisions to this manual shall be proposed and incorporated under the DLMS Technical Review Committee (TRC) forum for logistics technical area issues.  Submit all proposed change requests through your designated DoD Component TRC representative, or your Military Service’s DLA Transaction Services DoD focal points. The submittal procedures are available at: 

*http://www.dla.mil/HQ/InformationOperations/DLMS/eLibrary/Changes/proposed/*

IV.  This Volume is approved for public release and is available electronically at:

www.dla.mil/does/dlms-pubs

V.  The DLA******Transactions Services Customer Helpdesk~~~~may be contacted 24 by 7 at Telephone: (937) 656-3247/DSN: 986-3247, FAX: (937) 656-3900/DSN: 986-3900, or E-mail:  *daascustomersupport@dla.mil*.

	Paul D. Peters 

	Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

	  for Supply Chain Integration

F1-1

# image1.png
DLA FORM 36, MAR 2008 PDF (DLA)

DLA SUGGESTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE Page # of ##

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 10 U.S.C. 1124, Cash awards for disclosures, suggestions, inventions, and scientific 

achievements; and DOD Manual 1400.25-M, DOD Civilian Personnel Manual, subchapter 451, Awards. 

 

 Information is maintained to evaluate suggestions, to process award or recognition documents, and to prepare reports. 

 

Records may be released to Federal, state, and local agencies and private organizations to research and evaluate suggestions or to 

process award or recognition documents; and for any of the DOD "Blanket Routine Uses": 

http://www.defenselink.mil/privacy/notices/blanket-uses.html 

 

Voluntary; however, failure to provide the requested information will prevent DLA from evaluating your Suggestion. 

 

Rules for collecting, using, retaining, and safeguarding this information are contained in DLA Privacy Act System Notice S352.10, 

entitled "Suggestion Files" available at: http://www.defenselink.mil/privacy/notices/dla/

Authority: 

 

 

Purpose(s): 

 

Routine Uses: 

 

 

 

Disclosure: 

 

Rules of Use:

SUGGESTION NUMBER (Added by Activity Program Coordinator) SUGGESTION TITLE

SUGGESTION SUBMITTED BY

1. NAME 2. WORK PHONE 3. POSITION TITLE AND GRADE/MILITARY RANK

4. SEND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO (Name and address) 5. ACTIVITY ELEMENT AND ORGANIZATION (if different than block 4)

6. PROPOSED SUGGESTION (Include a description of your suggestion, a solution and benefits of the proposed suggestion)

Your acceptance of a cash award for this suggestion, if approved, shall constitute an agreement that the use of your suggestion by the U.S. 

Government or any municipal government shall not form the basis of a further claim of any nature upon the U.S. Government or any municipal 

government by you, your heirs, or assignees.

7. MAY YOUR NAME BE USED IN PROCESSING THIS SUGGESTION 8. SUGGESTER'S SIGNATURE AND DATE SIGNED

9. REMARKS (For Suggestion Office Use Only)
No. 11-5011.

#### Anthony Nix, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 885, 132 S. Ct. 258,

181 L. Ed. 2d 150,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5726.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 628 F.3d 1341.
Fireworks safety message from DLA Installation Management Susquehanna
 
  By Fred Smith, DLA Installation Management Susquehanna, Assistant Fire Chief of Training and Prevention
  Fireworks are often used to mark special events and holidays. However, the only safe way to view fireworks is to attend a professional show. These shows are returning this year after being cancelled last year. Fireworks are simply not safe in the hands of consumers and cause thousands of injuries each year. Ideas to share the patriotic sprit without fireworks: Use glow sticks, they glow in the dark and are a safer alternative to sparklers and they last longer. Fun for all ages.
 Loud and proud. Noise makers are sure to make a statement. They can be found at party supply stores or make your own.
 Host an outdoor movie night. Set up a screen and projector. Don’t forget the bug spray!
 Purchase red, white, and blue silly string.
 Make a patriotic craft with the family.
 Throw a birthday party for the USA and don’t forget the cake. Facts -- More than 19,500 reported fires are started by fireworks annually. Burns account for 44% of the 9,100 injuries treated in emergency rooms seen in the month of July. Half of the fireworks injuries seen at emergency rooms were extremities: hand, finger, or leg. One-third were to the eye or other parts of the head. Children ages 10–14 had the highest rate of fireworks injury, with more than one-third of the victims of fireworks injuries under age 15. Sparklers account for roughly one-quarter of emergency room fireworks injuries. Visit the NFPA.org website for more information.
No. 10-10626.

#### Oliver Crawford, Petitioner v. Illinois.

565 U.S. 842, 132 S. Ct. 154,

181 L. Ed. 2d 70,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6085.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 402 Ill. App. 3d 1184, 376 Ill. Dec. 785, 1 N.E.3d 118.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                                           7,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,415
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,719
<PP&E>                                       3,776,759
<DEPRECIATION>                                 345,039
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,194,873
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          952,784
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,049,782
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,194,873
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,080,991
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,230,213
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,423
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             180,555
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,298,354)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,298,354)
<DISCONTINUED>                              (2,909,391)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,207,745)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (4.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019

Change 13

AP3.58-1 APPENDIX 3.58

AP3.58. APPENDIX 3.58

TRANSACTION REJECT

FIELD LEGEND

RECORD

POSITION(S) ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Document Identifier

Code

1-3 Enter DIC DZG.

Routing Identifier Code

(TO)

4-6 Enter RIC of the activity to which the 

transaction is being forwarded.

Other Fields 7-53 Perpetuate data from the incoming 

transaction being rejected.

Correct Manager's 

Routing Identifier Code

54-56 Enter RIC of correct manager, if known, 

when code AB is indicated in record 

positions 79-80; otherwise, leave blank.

Rejected Document 

Identification Code

57-59 Enter DIC from record positions 1-3 of the 

incoming transaction being rejected.

Other Fields 60-66 Perpetuate data from the incoming 

transaction being rejected.

Routing Identifier Code 

(FROM)

67-69 Enter RIC of the activity rejecting the 

document.

Other Fields 70-78 Perpetuate data from the incoming 

transaction being rejected.

Dual Use 79-80

Reject Advice

or

(79-80) Enter applicable advice code (see 

appendix AP2.8 of this manual).

MILSTRIP Status (79-80) Enter applicable MILSTRIP status code 

(see MILSTRIP).
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 4686

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CHRISTOPHER HAROLD GOINS, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 7:10

- cr - 00107

- FL

- 1 )

Submitted : May 10, 2022 Decided: May 17, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Caro lina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Un published opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4686 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/17/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Christopher Harold Goins, Jr., appeals his 240

- month sentence, arguing that the district court erroneously sentenced him as an armed career criminal, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), because one of his predicates is invalid. However, as Goins correctly concedes, his challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Dodge , 963 F.3d 379, 381

- 85 (4th Cir. 2020) , which held that the predicate offense at issue

— North Carolina breaking and entering, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14

- 5 4(a)

— categorically qualifies as a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. And, as Goins further acknowledges, this panel is not at liberty to
overrule Dodge

. See United States v. Williams , 808 F.3d 253, 261 (4th Cir. 2015)

. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AF FIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-4686 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/17/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
**DoD 4000.25-8-M**

**11 MARCH 1997**

DLM 4000.25, Volume 6, June 5, 2012

**APPENDIX 2.9**

**ADDITION/REVISION TO MAPAD FOR MAP GRANT AID**

**(MA1, MA2)**

## 

2

**AP2.3-**

AP2.9-1

APPENDIX 2.9
DLM 4000.25-4

****

**DAAS**

**DEFENSE**

**AUTOMATIC**

**ADDRESSING**

**SYSTEM**

**June 5, 2012**

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

(SUPPLY CHAIN INTEGRATION)

# image1.jpeg
No. 10-1434.

No. 10-1435.

#### Darrel Rundus, Petitioner v. City of Dallas, Texas, et al. Darrel Rundus, Petitioner v. City of Dallas, Texas, et al.

565 U.S. 821, 132 S. Ct. 107,

181 L. Ed. 2d 33,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6703.

October 3, 2011.

Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same cases below, 634 F.3d 309.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99-2

                  CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER
                       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 Quarterly Report of Interliant, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Logan Snow, Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the
best of my knowledge

(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 issuer.

August 14, 2002                      /s/ Logan Snow
                                     --------------
                                     Logan Snow
                                     Principal Accounting Officer
No. 10-6683.

#### Brenda Lee Ford, Petitioner v. Elaine Chapman, Warden.

562 U.S. 1018, 131 S. Ct. 541,

178 L. Ed. 2d 397,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8401.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 513.