alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 I 0 2 84

. STATE OF GEORGI A v . J I GNESHKUMAR PATEL et a l

.

In No vem

b er 2 0 1 8, t h e St at e o f Geo rg ia fi led a co m p l ai nt fo r ci v i l fo rfei t u re

o f cert ai n p ro p ert y pu rs u an t t o OCGA § 9 -1 6 -1 2

. J ig n es hk u m ar Pat el an d T o ral Pat el

fi led cl ai m s to t h e p ro pert y

, an d t h e t ri al co u rt u l t im at el y d i s m i s s ed t h e St at e’ s

co m p l ai n t o n J un e 24

, 2 0 1 9

. Th e St at e t h en fi l ed t h i s t im el y ap p l i cat i o n fo r

i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal

. J ig nes hk u m ar Pat el an d To ral Pat el fi led a m o t io n t o d i s m i s s t h e

ap p li cat io n arg ui ng t h at ou r i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p el l at e p ro ced u res w er e i n ap p l i cab l e

b ecau s e t h e tri al co u rt ’ s o rd er “ was a f i n al o rd er as defi n ed b y OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (a)

(1 ).”

Un d er OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (a) (1 ), a d i rect ap p eal m a y b e t a k en fro m “ [a] l l fi n al

ju d g m en t s

, t h at i s t o s ay

, wh ere t h e cas e i s n o l o n g er pen d i ng in th e co u rt b el o w,”

ex cep t as p ro v i d ed in OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5

, t h e di s cret io n ary ap p eal s t at u t e. Here, t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s J un e 2 4 o rd er i s a fi n al ord er t hat d i s m i s sed t h e co m p l ai n t an d an n o un ced t h e

ret u rn o f al l o f t h e p ro p ert y id en t i fi ed i n t he co m p l ai n t t o J i gn es h k u m ar Pat el an d

To ral Pat el

, p en d i n g an y ap peal

. A d d i t i on al l y

, t hi s cas e d oes n o t fal l wi t h i n t h e

cat eg o ri es o f c a s e s g o v ern ed b y OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5. “ Th i s Co u rt wi l l g ran t a t i m el y

ap p li cat io n fo r i n t erl o cu t o ry rev i ew i f th e o rd er co m p l ai n ed o f i s s u b

ject t o d i rect

a p p e a l an d t h e ap p l i can t s h av e n ot o t h erwi s e fi l ed a n o t i ce o f ap peal .” S p i vey v.

Hemb r ee , 2 6 8 Ga. Ap p . 4 8 5 , 4 8 6 , n . 1 (6 0 2 SE2 d 2 4 6 ) (2 0 0 4 ).

Acco rd i ng l y

, t h is ap p l icat i o n fo r i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal i s h ereb y GRANTED,

an d t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i s DENIED. Th e St at e s h al l h av e t en d ay s fro m th e d at e o f August 07, 2019t h i s ord er t o fi l e a no t i ce o f ap p eal i n t he t ri al co urt

, i f i t h as n o t al read y d on e s o

. Th e

t ri al co u rt cl erk i s D IRECTED t o i n cl u d e a co p y o f t h is ord er in th e ap p el lat e reco rd

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/07/2019
Charlie STEPHENS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10375.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
IMPORTANT: Attach copy of opinion or order appealed from. Forward together with copy of 

notice of appeal and certified docket entries 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

Appeal Information Sheet 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California 

WAYMO LLC v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al. 

PLAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANT(S) 

Waymo LLC Uber Technologies, Inc.

Otto Trucking LLC

Ottomotto LLC

Anthony Levandowski (Non‐Party)

(List all parties. Use asterisk to indicate dismissed or withdrawn parties. Use separate sheet if 

needed. Explain any discrepancy with caption used on judgment, order or opinion.) 

Type of case: Patent 

Docket No. C 17-0939 WHA Date of Judgment/Order: April 10, 2017 

Cross or related appeal? Date of Notice of Appeal: April 11, 2017 

Appellant is: ( ) Plaintiff ( ) Defendant ( x ) Other (Non-Party) 

 

DOCKET FEE STATUS: 

( x ) Paid ( ) Not Paid Billed On: 

U.S. Appeal? Yes ( ) No ( x ) 

In forma pauperis? 

( ) Granted ( ) Denied ( ) Revoked ( ) Pending ( ) Never requested 

COUNSEL (List name, firm, address and telephone of lead counsel for each party. Indicate 

party represented.): 

COURT REPORTER: (Name and telephone) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 229 Filed 04/13/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-17-TLS 

)

CURTIS D. WITTWER )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 37], filed on October 11, 2013. The Defendant has waived objection to

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 37] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 6 of the Indictment IS hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on November 15, 2013. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
#### IMI MARKETING, L.L.C, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. MACY’S EAST, INC., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.

Docket No. 03-7260.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 25, 2004.

Russell D. Munves, Storch Amini & Munves, P.C, New York, NY, for Appellant.

Diane Saunders, Morgan, Brown & Joy, LLP, Boston, MA, for Appellee.

Present: KATZMANN, WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and POLLACK,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Milton Pollack, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

*792SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, granting summary judgment for the defendant. This Court reviews *de novo*a district court’s granting of summary judgment. *Anderson v. Rochester-Genesee Reg’l Transp. Auth,*337 F.3d 201, 206 (2d Cir. 2003).

Familiarity with the facts of this case is assumed. Briefly, this case turns on the interpretation of Clause 26 of the Service Agreement between the parties — specifically, whether the provision prohibits the plaintiff from recovering lost profits. The district court held that the contract barred the plaintiff from recovering such damages, and, in any event, the plaintiff’s estimate of lost profits was too speculative to be recoverable.

We find that the district court committed no error that would warrant reversal. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6242
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MELVIN SUMLER, a/k/a Clever, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-96-116) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Sumler, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Melvin Sumler appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Sumler , No. CR-96-116 (E.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2000). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**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 theQuarterly Report of AXCESS Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-QSB for the period endedJune 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “***Report***”),I, Allan L. Frank, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary andPrincipal Accounting and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)                    TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable; and

 

(2)                    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the datesand for the periods indicated.

 

 
| /S/ ALLAN L.  FRANK                                                                                 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Allan L.  Frank                                                                                     |
| Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Principal Accounting and  Financial Officer |
|                                                                                                |
| Dated:  August 13, 2003                                                                        |

 

----
مشكالت النوم

مكتب الغذاء والدواء لصحة املرآة 

womens/gov.fda.www

حقائق أساسية حول النوم

يحتاج معظم البالغني من 7 إىل 8 ساعات نوم ليال.ً ال 

يحصل الجميع عىل النوم الالزم.

وبني الحني واآلخر، قد تعاين من مشكالت بالنوم بسبب:

• الضغط

• مشكالت صحية وعقاقري

• ساعات عمل طويلة/ورديات العمل

 الضوء والضوضاء

• رشب الكحول أو تناول الطعام قبيل النوم

فإذا كنت تعاين من مشكالت بالنوم أو االستمرار بالنوم 

معظم الليايل، فمن املرجح أنك تعاين من مشكالت النوم 

التي تسمى األرق.

يعاين بعض األفراد من مشكالت بالنوم أكرث شدة. استرش 

طبيبك إذا كنت: 

النوم أثناء اليوم

الشخري أو إصدار أصوات صادمة أثناء النوم

الشعور بشعور غريب برجيلك أو الشعر باالحتياج 

لتحريك رجليك.

العقاقري تساعدك عىل النوم

هناك عقاقري قد تساعدك عىل النوم أو االستمرار يف النوم. 

قد تحتاج لصوف الطبيب لتعاطي بعص عقاقري النوم. 

ميكنك الحصول عىل عقار ال يحتاج لوصفة طبية.

الوصفة الطبية

تساعد وصفات عقاقري النوم العديد األشخاص ولكنها قد 

تسبب أعراض جانبية خطرية.

استرش طبيبك حول جميع مخاطر استخدام عقاقري 

النوم ومزاياه.

ميكن أن تؤثر عقاقري النوم التي يتم تعاطيها لألرق عىل 

القيادة الصباحية بعد االستخدام.

قد تسبب عقاقري النوم أعراض جانبية نادرة مثل:

	 التفاعالت التحسسية البالغة

	 تورم الوجه الشديد

	 السلوكيات مثل إجراء مكاملات تليفونية أو تناول 

الطعام أو مامرسة الجنس أو القيادة عندما ال 

تكون متيقظ بالكامل.

العقاقري املتوفرة بدون وصفة طبية

تنطوي عقاقري النوم املتوفرة بدون وصفة طبية عىل آثار 

جانبية. اقرأ ”ملصق حقائق العقار“ للتعرف عىل املزيد حول 

اآلثار الجانبية لعقاقري النوم املتوفرة بدون وصفة طبية.
تم تطوير صحيفة الحقائق من قبل مكتب الغذاء والدواء لصحة املرآة.

للحصول عىل مصادر أخرى لصحة املرآة، قم بزيارة:

womens/gov.fda.www

2021

مشكالت النوم

نصائح حول نوم أفضل

القيام ببعض التعديالت عىل عادات النوم الليلية فقد تساعدك عىل النوم.

• أذهب للرسير واستيقظ يف نفس األوقات كل يوم.

نم يف الظالم ويف غرفة هادئة.

تجنب رشب الكفايني والنيكوتني.

ال ترشب الكحول قبل النوم.

• قم بيشء يساعدك عىل االسرتخاء قبل النوم.

ال تقم بتدريبات رياضية قبل النوم.

• ال تغفو بعد الساعة الثالثة بعد الظهر.

• ال تأكل وجبات كبرية قبل الذهاب للنوم.

استرش موفر الرعاية الصحية الخاص بك إذا كنت تعامني من مشكالت يف النو م 

كل ليلة تقريبا ألكرث من أسبوعني.

مشكالت النوم)ARABIC)
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1270

AN ACT

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to

Trust Fund financing rate.extend the Leaking Underground Storage Tank

109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1270

AN ACT

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend

the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund

financing rate.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1270 EH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LEAKING UNDERGROUND STOR2 AGE TANK TRUST FUND FINANCING RATE.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 4081(d)

4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to Leaking

5 Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund financing rate)

6 is amended by striking ‘‘April 1, 2005’’ and inserting ‘‘Oc7 tober 1, 2005’’.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

9 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment

10 of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives March 16,

2005.

Attest:

Clerk.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

DAT/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MARGARITO LIRA-LIRA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-10070

D.C. No. CR-07-00118-DCB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Ninth Circuit Judges. 

Margarito Lira-Lira appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 72-month

sentence imposed for possession with intent to distribute approximately 212

kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii).

FILED

JAN 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DAT/Research 2 08-10070

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lira-Lira’s counsel

has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
# Soo-ts tow* fpx-iw set-/? tows r*r~/s ELECTRONIC RECORD COA # 05-14-00978-CR 

### OFFENSE: OTHER CRIMINAL Nicholas Davell Amos v. The State 

## STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Dallas COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 291st Judicial District Court 

### DATE: 03/31/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: F-1341905-U



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS STYLE: Nicholas Davell Amos v. The State of Texas 

## PRO SE Petition FOR DISCRETIONARYREVIEW IN CCAIS: DATE: 

# ftM (JAAsts*- JUDGE: CCA#: 

# SOWSff«/*/C **>*•//* CCADisposition: DATE: 

### JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH: REHEARING IN CCA IS: 

### JUDGE: 

### PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR 

### ELECTRONIC RECORD
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

NOTICE RE FURTHER

HEARING ON MOTION TO

STRIKE ASSERTED TRADE

SECRET NUMBER 96

At the hearing tomorrow, plaintiff Waymo LLC should be prepared to discuss (1) how it

derived the comparison graphs shown in its offer of proof (Dkt. No. 1371-4 at 24), (2) whether

the x and y axes of said graphs are “adjusted for scale” by the same proportion, and (3) whether

Waymo maintains that said graphs present an accurate comparison in light of the parties’

responses to the Court’s questions in advance of the hearing (see Dkt. Nos. 1457, 1459, 1462).

Dated: September 5, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1465 Filed 09/05/17 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<CIK>                         0000710507
<NAME>                        First Banks, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                Jun-30-1997 
<CASH>                                         111,701
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,646
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               133,900
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 2,298
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    530,598
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          19,597
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      2,859,918
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (47,708)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,794,020 
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,348,380  
<SHORT-TERM>                                    53,216
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             48,098
<LONG-TERM>                                     83,130
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     60,375
<COMMON>                                         5,915
<OTHER-SE>                                     194,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,794,020
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                123,097
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               16,480
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,502
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               142,079
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              65,741
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              73,373
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           68,706
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    6,025
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 49,556
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,041
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      24,041
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,699
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   558.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   534.61
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.33
<LOANS-NON>                                     27,217
<LOANS-PAST>                                     6,127
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 28,915
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                46,781
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   10,648
<RECOVERIES>                                     5,550
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               47,708
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            47,708
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Zep Inc. (the “Corporation”) for the year ended August 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certifies that:

 

(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 Corporation.

 

 
| /s/   Mark R. Bachmann                                                             |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Mark   R. Bachmann                                                                 |   |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| November 1,   2011                                                            |   |

 

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Zep Inc. and will be retained by Zep Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]

 

----
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, petitioner, v. Larry BUTLER, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated.

No. 12-1067.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further consideration in light of *Comcast Corp. v. Behrend* , 569 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1426, 185 L.Ed.2d 515 (2013).
Steve VEIGEL, petitioner, v. RABO AGRIFINANCE, INC., et al.

No. 12-1164.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

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