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:

A24A0681. ARTHUR BUSSEY v. THE STATE.

A24A0684. ARTHUR BUSSEY v. THE STATE.

In 2015, Arthur Shermaine Bussey was charged with two counts of aggravated

assault. Count 1 alleged that Bussey stabbed the victim in the chest, and Count 2

alleged that he stabbed the victim in the back. Bussey pled guilty to both counts and

received a total sentence of 30 years, to serve 20 in confinement.In 2020, Bussey filed

a “Motion to Challenge Constitutionality of the Indictment,” arguing that the two

counts should have merged. The trial court interpreted the motion as one to vacate

a void sentence and denied it. Bussey appealed, and this Court dismissed the appeal.

See Case No. A20A1978 (dismissed Aug. 24, 2020). We explained in our dismissal

order that Bussey’s merger argument was a challenge to a conviction rather than a

sentence. Thus, the argument did not constitute a valid void-sentence claim, and the

appeal was subject to dismissal. See Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192, 193-194 (695 SE2d

244) (2010); Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 348-349 (691 SE2d 247) (2010).

Bussey then filed in the trial court the underlying two motions, one seeking the

criminal histories of the State’s witnesses, and the second seeking to set aside a void

judgment, again arguing that the charges should have merged. The trial court

dismissed both motions, noting that the criminal histories of the State’s witnesses

were available to Bussey through the statutory mechanism of OCGA § 35-3-34, and

finding that Bussey was not entitled to challenge the judgment on the ground that it

was void. Bussey now appeals from these two dismissals. We lack jurisdiction.

Bussey’s merger argument is a challenge to a conviction rather than a sentence,

January 18, 2024
and thus does not constitute a valid void-sentence claim. See Williams, 287 Ga. at

193-194.Moreover, these appeals are barred because the issues he raises have or could

have been litigated in his prior appeal. See Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 (534

SE2d 464) (2000) (“It is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad

infinitum. The same is true of appeals of the same issue on the same grounds.”)

(punctuation omitted); Jackson v. State, 273 Ga. 320, 320 (540 SE2d 612) (2001) (a

party “is not entitled to another bite at the apple by way of a second appeal”); DeKalb

County v. Heath, 331 Ga.App. 179, 181 (1) (770 SE2d 269) (2015) (“[T]he doctrine of

res judicata prevents the re-litigation of all claims which have already been

adjudicated, or which could have been adjudicated, between identical parties or their

privies in identical causes of action.”) (punctuation and emphasis omitted).

Accordingly, these appeals are 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.

01/18/2024
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Predicting tree biomass growth in the temperate-boreal ecotone: is tree size, age, competition or climate response most important?      

      May 19, 2016    

As global temperatures rise, variation in annual climate is also changing, with unknown consequences for forest biomes. Growing forests have the ability to capture atmospheric CO2and thereby slow rising CO2 concentrations. Forests’ ongoing ability to sequester C depends on how tree communities respond to changes in climate variation. Much of what we know about tree and forest response to climate variation comes from tree-ring records. Yet typical tree-ring datasets and models do not capture the diversity of climate responses that exist within and among trees and species. We address this issue using a model that estimates individual tree response to climate variables while accounting for variation in individuals’ size, age, competitive status, and spatially structured latent covariates. Our model allows for inference about variance within and among species. We quantify how variables influence aboveground biomass growth of individual trees from a representative sample of 15 northern or southern tree species growing in a transition zone between boreal and temperate biomes. Individual trees varied in their growth response to fluctuating mean annual temperature and summer moisture stress. The variation among individuals within a species was wider than mean differences among species. The effects of mean temperature and summer moisture stress interacted, such that warm years produced positive responses to summer moisture availability and cool years produced negative responses. As climate models project significant increases in annual temperatures, growth of species likeAcer saccharum, Quercus rubra, and Picea glauca will vary more in response to summer moisture stress than in the past. The magnitude of biomass growth variation in response to annual climate was 92–95% smaller than responses to tree size and age. This means that measuring or predicting the physical structure of current and future forests could tell us more about future C dynamics than growth responses related to climate change alone.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### John B Bradford, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist, Northwest CASC

Climate Adaptation Science Centers

jbradford@usgs.gov

928-380-4671

## Related Content

#### John B Bradford, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist, Northwest CASC

Climate Adaptation Science Centers

jbradford@usgs.gov

928-380-4671

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Southwest Biological Science Center - Flagstaff, AZ, Headquarters          

2255 N. Gemini DriveFlagstaff, AZ86001United States

928-556-7094

928-556-7092

### Explore Search

                  - Climate
                  - Ecosystems
                  - United States
                  - superior national forest
                  - Minnesota

View All **
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4893 

To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 

to prohibit the use of guarantee fees as offsets. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 11, 2016 

Mr. SANFORD (for himself, Mr. SHERMAN, and Mr. NEUGEBAUER) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Rules, and in 

addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to prohibit the use of guarantee fees 

as offsets. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Risk Management and 

5 Homeowner Stability Act of 2016’’. 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4893 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING THE USE OF GUARANTEE FEES AS 

2 OFFSETS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Congressional 

4 Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following new section: 

6 ‘‘PROHIBITING THE USE OF GUARANTEE FEES AS

7 OFFSETS

8 ‘‘SEC. 316. (a) In the Senate or the House of Rep9 resentatives, if a bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or 

10 conference report includes a provision that increases, or 

11 extends the increase of, the guarantee fees of an enter12 prise, the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the 

13 applicable House shall not count the budgetary effects of 

14 such provision for purposes of title III and title IV of the 

15 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974, the 

16 Rules of the House of Representatives, and applicable pro17 visions of concurrent resolutions on the budget. 

18 ‘‘(b) The evaluation under subsection (a) shall not 

19 apply to any legislation that provides for an increase, or 

20 extension of an increase, of any guarantee fee of an enter21 prise to be used for the purpose of financing reforms to 

22 the secondary mortgage market.’’. 

23 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con24 tents set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget 

25 and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by inVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:29 Apr 11, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4893.IH H4893

sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4893 IH

1 serting after the item relating to section 315 the following 

2 new item: 

‘‘Sec. 316. Prohibiting the use of guarantee fees as offsets.’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4885 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 435
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4885

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 21, 2016

                     Received; read the first time

                             April 25, 2016

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To require that user fees collected by the Internal Revenue Service be 
            deposited into the general fund of the Treasury.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``IRS Oversight While Eliminating 
Spending (OWES) Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. DEPOSIT OF IRS USER FEES INTO GENERAL FUND OF THE TREASURY.

    (a) In General.--The second sentence of section 3 of title I of 
Public Law 103-329 (26 U.S.C. 7801 note), under the heading 
``administrative provisions-internal revenue service'', is amended by 
striking ``The Secretary of the Treasury may spend'' and all that 
follows through ``and thereafter:'' and inserting the following: ``Any 
fees collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the 
general fund of the Treasury and shall not be expended by the Internal 
Revenue Service unless provided by an appropriations Act:''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The last proviso of such section is 
amended by striking ``and how they are being expended by the Service''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to fees collected after the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 20, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                       Calendar No. 435

114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4885

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To require that user fees collected by the Internal Revenue Service be 
            deposited into the general fund of the Treasury.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 25, 2016

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
RE: Case #

TRUSTEE’S NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY FOR CONFIRMATION AND RECOMMENDATION (Pre 341)

The Trustee reviewed this case for the meeting of creditors and found the following deficiencies from the Trustee’s letter requesting 

documents and thus objects as follows: Reviewed documents received prior to: 

Tax returns: Corporate Tax Returns: 

 Plan form completed incorrectly

Plan does not fund properly 

Calculation errors Missing months/amounts Inconsistent terms 

Attorney fee itemization or Fee Application needed (see court guideline 6) 

Other provisions: 100% Lawsuit Gambling MMM 

 Lien Avoidance motion not filed 

Reaffirm, redeem or surrender Sch D or G creditor: 

MMM Motion not filed 

Priority debt on Schedule E not in plan: 

Creditor in Plan is not listed in Schedules or has not filed a POC:

Creditor paid through the Plan has not filed a POC: 

Object or Conform to Proof of Claim: Miami-Dade County Tax Certificate (DE# ) Dept of Revenue 

 IRS

OTHER PLAN ISSUES:

Real Estate FMV and Payoff: 

Non-Homestead Information Sheet: 

Vehicles FMV (NADA/Carmax), Reg and Payoff: 

Other: 

Bank Account Statements 3 months pre-petition 

Copy of check(s) and/or explanation: 

Explanation of withdrawal(s): 

Domestic Support Obligation form complete with info: name, address and phone 

Wage deduction order or Motion to waive 

 Profit/loss Balance Sheet 

Business Bank statements and checks 3 months pre-petition 

Trustee reserves the right to raise additional objects until all requested documents are timely provided. This deficiency is limited to 

missing documents only. The Trustee will file a Notice of Deficiency with additional document requested and legal issues raised after the 

341 - meeting of creditors. I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served through ECF on the debtor’s 

attorney or by U.S. First Class pre-paid Mail on the pro se debtor on the same day filed with the Court.

Submitted by NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQ, STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE P.O. BOX 279806, MIRAMAR, FL 33027

*DOCUMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED OR FILED AND ISSUES ADDRESSED AT LEAST FOURTEEN DAYS PRIOR TO EACH

CONFIRMATION HEARING TO AVOID DISMISSAL*

 LF 1 LF 67

Life Insurance Policy

Rosa M. Villaman 20-10060 RAM 3/5/20 ✔ 2018-2019 ✔ 2018-2019 ✔ Photo ID ✔

✔

✔

Missing 2016(B) ✔ ✔ IVL - Miami ✔

✔ Lavette D. Bell ✔ Valuation motion not filed ✔ Amend section II. B. math error and III. E. to disclose account number and section III. A1.

creditor address/account number to match poc #1 US Bank.

✔

✔

✔

✔ Jewelry FMV. ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔

Affidavit of support LF 90 LF 10 BDQ & attachments 401K/Retirement/Pension Annuity

Case 20-10060-RAM Doc 32 Filed 03/05/20 Page 1 of 1
DAN BENISHEK 

MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

1ST DIS'TAICTr MICHIGAN 

C!Congress of tbe Wnfteb ~tates 

J.)oul)e of l\epre~entatibel) 

Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief 

Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast 

Wa~hington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

August 21, 2012 

I am writing to express my support for SkyWest Airlines' proposal to provide Essential Air 

Service (EAS) to Ford Airpo'rt in Kingsford, Michigan. · · 

As you know, reliable service to geographically remote areas such as the Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan is crucial for business and recreational travel. SkyWest currently provides EAS to the 

neighboring cities of Houghton, Michigan and Rhinelander, Wisconsin. The number of 

passengers at Ford Airport continues to grow; therefore, SkyWest's proposal to expand their 

operations and passenger base would have a positive impact throughout the entire region. 

Thank you for your consideration of my request. If you have any questions or need additional 

information, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Dan Benishek M.D. 

Member of Congress 

DB:tlj 

cc: Mr. Timothy Howen 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Corrections]
[Page 19464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-60418]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 290


Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Freedom of Information Act 
Program

Correction

    In rule document 95-8652 beginning on page 18005 in the issue of 
Monday, April 10, 1995, the EFFECTIVE DATE should read ``(April 10, 
1995).''.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Principal facts for two-hundred-thirty-five gravity stations near Craters of the Moon, Idaho      

      January 1, 1985    

View Document

No abstract available.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Carol A Finn, Ph.D.

##### Research Geophysicist

Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center

cfinn@usgs.gov

303-236-1345

## Related Content

#### Carol A Finn, Ph.D.

##### Research Geophysicist

Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center

cfinn@usgs.gov

303-236-1345

### Study Area

### Contacts

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Idaho
                  - craters of the moon

View All **
# L_2004379EN.01001201.xml

| 24.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 379/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 379/12

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2228/2004

of 23 December 2004

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 15th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) and in particular the second indent of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 of 19 July 2004 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2004/2005 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 of 19 July 2004 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2004/2005 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 15th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 the maximum amount of the export refund shall be 45,543 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 December 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 December 2004.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 246, 20.7.2004, p. 23. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1685/2004 (OJ L 303, 30.9.2004, p. 21).

2

---
Arlis WILSON v. STATE

CR-15-0746

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Book Chapters 

#           Streamflow data      

      November 5, 2016    

Streamflow data are vital for a variety of water-resources issues, from flood warning to water supply planning. The collection of streamflow data is usually an involved and complicated process. This chapter serves as an overview of the streamflow data collection process. Readers with the need for the detailed information on the streamflow data collection process are referred to the many references noted in this chapter.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

####             Robert Holmes, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, F.EWRI, D.WRE (Former Employee)          

##### Chief, Hydrodynamics Branch

Water Resources Mission Area

##### Chief, Water Cycle Branch (acting)

Water Resources Mission Area

## Related Content

####             Robert Holmes, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, F.EWRI, D.WRE (Former Employee)          

##### Chief, Hydrodynamics Branch

Water Resources Mission Area

##### Chief, Water Cycle Branch (acting)

Water Resources Mission Area

### Contact

#### Dakota Water Science Center- Rapid City

1608 Mountain ViewRapid City, SD57702United States

(605) 394-3200

(605) 355-4523

####             Water Resources Mission Area - Headquarters        

USGS Headquarters12201 Sunrise Valley DriveReston, VA20192United States