alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Timothy TACY, Appellant, v. Kevin RAMBOSK, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Collier County, Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4547

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2019

Timothy Tacy, pro se.

Adriana M. Jisa of Purdy, Jolly, Giuffreda, Barranco & Jisa, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of SmartFinancial, Inc., a Tennessee corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of William Y. Carroll, Jr., President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ronald J. Gorczynski, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company.





/ s/  William Y. Carroll, Jr.William Y. Carroll, Jr.President & Chief Executive Officer & Director(principal executive officer)Date: March 12, 2020





/ s/  Ronald J. GorczynskiRonald J. GorczynskiExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer and accounting officer)Date: March 12, 2020





[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SmartFinancial, Inc. and will be retained by SmartFinancial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
Daniel Lee DURNING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3817

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 1 of 42 PageID 1
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 2 of 42 PageID 2
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 3 of 42 PageID 3
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 4 of 42 PageID 4
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 5 of 42 PageID 5
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 6 of 42 PageID 6
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 7 of 42 PageID 7
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 8 of 42 PageID 8
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 9 of 42 PageID 9
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 10 of 42 PageID 10
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 11 of 42 PageID 11
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 12 of 42 PageID 12
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 13 of 42 PageID 13
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 14 of 42 PageID 14
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 15 of 42 PageID 15
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 16 of 42 PageID 16
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 17 of 42 PageID 17
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 18 of 42 PageID 18
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 19 of 42 PageID 19
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 20 of 42 PageID 20
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 21 of 42 PageID 21
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 22 of 42 PageID 22
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 23 of 42 PageID 23
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 24 of 42 PageID 24
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 25 of 42 PageID 25
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 26 of 42 PageID 26
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 27 of 42 PageID 27
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 28 of 42 PageID 28
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 29 of 42 PageID 29
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 30 of 42 PageID 30
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 31 of 42 PageID 31
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 32 of 42 PageID 32
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 33 of 42 PageID 33
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 34 of 42 PageID 34
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 35 of 42 PageID 35
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 36 of 42 PageID 36
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 37 of 42 PageID 37
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 38 of 42 PageID 38
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 39 of 42 PageID 39
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 40 of 42 PageID 40
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 41 of 42 PageID 41
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 1 Filed 06/12/00 Page 42 of 42 PageID 42
Case 3:05-cv-00727-P Document 17 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 104
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00727-P Document 17 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 105
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00727-P Document 17 Filed 08/23/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 106
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00727-P Document 17 Filed 08/23/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 107
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00727-P Document 17 Filed 08/23/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 108
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Language Line Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the
quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Matthew T. Gibbs II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(iii) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|----- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(iv) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Language Line Holdings, Inc.
|---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 14, 2006



/s/ Matthew T. Gibbs IIMatthew T. Gibbs II Chief Financial Officer and Director (Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of this Report.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, created by**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned officer of ECC Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companyat the dates and for the periods indicated. 

 

Dated: August 15, 2005 

 

 

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of theCompany, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Crystal Ann TURNBEAUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-491

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

CYNTHIA F. WESLEY §

 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-293-Y

 §

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER §

OF SOCIAL SECURITY §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

On February 7, 2006, the United States Magistrate Judge issued

his findings, conclusions, and recommendation in the above-styled and

numbered cause (“the findings”). An order issued that same day gave

all parties until March 1 to serve and file with the Court written

objections to the findings. Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

Thus, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), de novo review is not

required. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the findings for plain

error and has found none. After consideration of this matter, the

Court finds that the findings should be and are hereby ADOPTED as the

findings and conclusions of this Court. 

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner

is REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings

consistent with the findings.

SIGNED March 3, 2006.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00293-Y Document 19 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 111
Anthony CLARKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3337

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 21, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as Trustee, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. GOSSAMER WING, LLC, et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2646

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27 - FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
------------------------------------

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet as of December 31, 1999, and statements of operations for the twelve
months ended December 31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,083
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,583
<PP&E>                                               2
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,568
<BONDS>                                        176,559
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,211
<OTHER-SE>                                    (261,753)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,585
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (58,216)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (58,216)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (58,216)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT RAY SANDLIN, 11398-078, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:05-CV-1544-D

)

DAN JOSLIN, Warden, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After conducting a de novo review, the Court finds that the Supplemental Findings,

Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are adopted as the

findings and conclusions of the Court.

Signed December 19, 2005.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01544-D Document 18 Filed 12/19/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 83
# C_2017256EN.01000602.xml

| 7.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2, Cádiz (Spain) lodged on 12 May 2017 — Moisés Vadillo González v Alestis Aerospace, S.L.

(Case C-252/17)

(2017/C 256/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 2, Cádiz

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Moisés Vadillo González

Applicant:

Defendant: Alestis Aerospace, S.L.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Directive 2010/18/EU (1) preclude an interpretation of Article 37.4 ET (leave of absence of an hour every day until the child reaches nine months of age) to the effect that, regardless of the sex of either parent, such leave is not be granted to the person applying for it if the other parent is unemployed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Directive 2010/18/EU (1) preclude an interpretation of Article 37.4 ET (leave of absence of an hour every day until the child reaches nine months of age) to the effect that, regardless of the sex of either parent, such leave is not be granted to the person applying for it if the other parent is unemployed?

1

| 2. | Does Article 3 of Directive 2006/54/EC, (2) which seeks to guarantee full equality between men and women in their working lives, preclude an interpretation of the said Article 37.4 ET to the effect that, if the male parent is working, he has no entitlement to such leave if his wife and fellow parent is unemployed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 3 of Directive 2006/54/EC, (2) which seeks to guarantee full equality between men and women in their working lives, preclude an interpretation of the said Article 37.4 ET to the effect that, if the male parent is working, he has no entitlement to such leave if his wife and fellow parent is unemployed?

2

---

(1)  Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC

1

OJ 2010 L 68, p. 13

OJ 2010 L 68, p. 13

(2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)

2

OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23

OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARCEL A. WRIGHT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2864

[March 17, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 10-7746CF10A.

Marcel A. Wright, Defuniak Springs, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 1 of 34 PageID 985
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 2 of 34 PageID 986
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 3 of 34 PageID 987
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 4 of 34 PageID 988
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 5 of 34 PageID 989
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 6 of 34 PageID 990
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 7 of 34 PageID 991
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 8 of 34 PageID 992
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 9 of 34 PageID 993
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 10 of 34 PageID 994
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 11 of 34 PageID 995
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 12 of 34 PageID 996
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 13 of 34 PageID 997
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 14 of 34 PageID 998
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 15 of 34 PageID 999
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 16 of 34 PageID 1000
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 17 of 34 PageID 1001
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 18 of 34 PageID 1002
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 19 of 34 PageID 1003
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 20 of 34 PageID 1004
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 21 of 34 PageID 1005
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 22 of 34 PageID 1006
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 23 of 34 PageID 1007
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 24 of 34 PageID 1008
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 25 of 34 PageID 1009
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 26 of 34 PageID 1010
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 27 of 34 PageID 1011
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 28 of 34 PageID 1012
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 29 of 34 PageID 1013
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 30 of 34 PageID 1014
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 31 of 34 PageID 1015
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 32 of 34 PageID 1016
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 33 of 34 PageID 1017
Case 3:03-cv-02711-B Document 82 Filed 04/04/05 Page 34 of 34 PageID 1018
# C_2022165EN.01001201.xml

| 19.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Airhelp Limited v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-451/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 3(1) - Scope - Flight with connecting flight departing from and arriving in a third country - Single reservation through a Community air carrier - Stopover in the territory of a Member State - Article 5(1)(c)(iii) and Article 7 - Delayed alternative flight - Taking into account of the actual arrival time for the purposes of compensation)

(2022/C 165/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Airhelp Limited

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation is not applicable to a flight with a connecting flight, booked under a single booking but consisting of two flights, both of which are operated by a Community air carrier, if both the departure airport of the first flight and the arrival airport of the second flight are in the territory of a third country and only the airport where the stopover takes place is in the territory of a Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---
1954.

#### CHATMAN *v.*THE STATE.

“When in a trial for crime the accused, through, his counsel, requests the court in writing to give in charge to the jury a stated proposition as a rule of law applicable to the case under the evidence, and this request is complied with, the accused can not thereafter justly complain that the charge requested and given was erroneous.” *Howard*v. *State,*115 *Ga.*245 (41 S. E. 654).

Indictment for murder, from Jasper superior court — Judge Lewis. May 14, 1909.

Submitted July 14, —

Decided July 31, 1909.

*Greene F. Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Joseph F. Potile, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bussell, J.

The defendant in the court below was indicted for murder and convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and he excepts to the judgment overruling his motion for a new trial. *565Pie can not complain of his conviction of involuntary manslaughter so far as the evidence is concerned, because the evidence on the part of the State would have authorized a verdict of guilty of murder. By the Penal Code, §67, it is provided that “where such involuntary killing shall happen in the commission of an unlawful act which, in its consequences, naturally tends to destroy the life of a human being, or is committed in the prosecution of a riotous intent, or of a crime punishable by death or confinement in the penitentiary, the offense shall be deemed and adjudged to be murder.” Nor will he be permitted to complain that the judge charged the jury upon the subject of involuntary manslaughter, because the judge certifies that the law of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act was given in charge at the request of the defendant’s counsel. Having invoked the charge, the defendant can not insist that the offense covered thereby is not involved in the case. *Burley*v. *State,*130 *Ga.*344 (60 S. E. 1006); *Harris*v. *State,*120 *Ga.*169 (47 S. E. 520); *Robinson*v. *State,*120 *Ga.*312 (47 S. E. 968); *Quattlebaum*v. *State,*119 *Ga.*433 (46 S. E. 677); *Steed*v. *State,*123 *Ga.*569 (51 S. E. 627); *Threlkeld*v. *State,*128 *Ga.*660 (58 S. E. *49); Howard*v. *State,*115 *Ga.*244 (41 S. E. 654), and citations.

*Judgment affirmed.*
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00441

- CR

IN RE NELSON PARNELL , JR.

Original Proceeding

O R D E R O N R E H E A R I N G

Relator’s Motion for Rehearing, filed on March 27, 2017, is denied. 1

Relator’s Motion for an Order for Partial Reporter’s Record, filed on March 31,

2017, is also denied.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Rehearing denied

Motion denied

Order issued and filed April 19 , 2017

1 We denied relator’s petition for writ of mandamus on March 15, 2017. Contrary to his assertions in his

motion for rehearing, we did not issue a writ in this proceeding to compel the trial court to rule on relator’s

motion.
S. Con. Res. 22 Agreed to December 8, 2021

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Sunday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty one 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed 

to transfer the catafalque which is situated in the Exhibition Hall 

of the Capitol Visitor Center to the rotunda of the Capitol so 

that such catafalque may be used in connection with services to 

be conducted there for the Honorable Robert Joseph Dole, a Senator 

from the State of Kansas. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.