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:

A17D0021. DAVID TYRONE FORDHAM v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF

HUMAN RESOURCES EX REL. TIA ROCHELLE COOK.

In March 2008, David Tyrone Fordham was ordered to pay child support for

his minor child pursuant to a final default order. The trial court denied Fordham’s

motion to set aside the default order and motion for reconsideration of the order

denying his motion to set aside the default order.1 Fordham then filed a second

motion to set aside the default order for support, which the trial court denied on June

14, 2016. On August 5, 2016, Fordhamfiled this application for discretionary appeal. 

We, however, lack jurisdiction.

To be timely, a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-

35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not made

in compliance therewith. Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57)

(1989). Because this application was filed 52 days after entry of the order being

appealed, it is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it.

2 Accordingly, this

1 Fordham filed a motion for an extension of time to file an application for

discretionary appeal from the 2014 order denying his motion for reconsideration of

the trial court’s denial of his motion to set aside the default order, which this Court

denied. See Fordham v. Dept. of Human Resources, Case No. A14E0020 (decided

April 3, 2014).

2

In his application, Fordhamalso seeks discretionary appeal of the trial court’s

order granting a motion for contempt entered June 7, 2016. Fordham has not

provided a copy of such an order with his application. Regardless, Fordham’s

August 24, 2016
application 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.

application would be untimely as to any June 7, 2016 order.

08/24/2016
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 the
annual report for the year ended December 31, 2010 on Form 10-K (the Annual Report) of HUGHES Telematics, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Craig J. Kaufmann,
Senior Vice President Finance and Treasurer 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, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/S/    CRAIG J.
KAUFMANNName:

Craig J. KaufmannTitle:

Senior Vice President Finance and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Date:

March 16, 2011
NUMBER 13-14-00393-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

LARRY GREEN, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 319th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Larry Green, filed a pro se notice of appeal regarding his conviction for 

the failure to register as a sex offender in trial court cause number 14-CR-0022-G in the 

319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. However, appellant has now filed two 

motions to dismiss his appeal. Appellant is unrepresented by counsel and has made no 

request for the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, we conclude that appellant’s 
2

motions comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a) (allowing voluntary dismissals in criminal appeals where the 

attorney and appellant both sign a written motion to dismiss); see also Flores v. State, 

No. 07-08-0256-CR, 2008 WL 4180296, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 12, 2008, no 

pet.) (not designated for publication) (stating that a pro se appeal could be dismissed in 

accordance with a motion signed by the appellant); Guerra v. State, No. 04-02-00135-

CR, 2002 WL 1973854, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 28, 2002, no pet.) (per 

curiam) (not designated for publication) (stating that a pro se motion to dismiss signed by 

the appellant complied with the appellate rules pertaining to the voluntary dismissal of 

criminal appeals). Without passing on the merits of the case, we GRANT the motions to 

dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and DISMISS the appeal. 

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be 

entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

31st day of July, 2014.
Paul Anthony DAVIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9791.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40894 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. WALTER FERNANDO VELASQUEZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:08-CR-107-9 USDC No. 4:08-MJ-458-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Walter FernandoVelasquez is charged with conspiracy to manufacture or distribute or possesswith intent todistribute narcotics. Velasquez appeals from an order of the district court that revoked the magistratejudge’s pretrial order granting release on bond. The district court revoked the magistratejudge’s order, determining that Velasquez had failed to rebut the presumption that no condition or combination United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 8, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-40894

2 of conditions will reasonably assure Velasquez’s presence at trial or the safety of the community ifVelasquez is released. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) & (f). We review the order issued by the district court, not that of the magistrate judge. United States v. Westbrook, 780 F.2d 1185, 1188 n.4 (5th Cir. 1986). Absent an error of law, we will uphold a district court’s pretrial detention order ifit is supported by the proceedings below. U nited States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir. 1992). Analysis of the factors set forth in § 3142(g) indicates that the district court’s conclusions are supported by the record. See id. at 586; see also United Statesv. Fortna, 769 F.2d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 1985)

. The pretrial detention order is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11869]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service


Information Collection Submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget for Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection of information listed below has been submitted to 
the Office of Management and Budget for reapproval under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of the 
proposed information collection and related forms may be obtained by 
contacting Dennis Jones at 303-231-3046. Comments and suggestions on 
this information collection should be made directly to the Bureau 
Clearance Officer at the telephone number listed below and to the 
Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1010-
0040), Washington, DC 20503, telephone 202-395-7340.
    Title: Production Accounting and Auditing System Oil and Gas 
Reports.
    Abstract: Production Accounting and Auditing System information is 
needed to provide comprehensive production and disposition data on oil 
and gas produced from Federal onshore and offshore leases, and from 
Indian leases. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) uses the data to 
monitor production, for audits, and to compare reported production with 
sales data reported in the MMS Auditing and Financial System.
    Bureau Form Numbers: MMS-3160, MMS-4051, MMS-4054, MMS-4055, MMS-
4056, and MMS-4058.
    Frequency: Monthly, quarterly, annually.
    Description of Respondents: Companies producing and processing oil 
and gas from Federal onshore and offshore leases, and from Indian 
leases.
    Estimated Completion Time: One-quarter to one-half hour.
    Annual Responses: 361,650.
    Annual Burden Hours: 105,275.
    Bureau Clearance Officer: Arthur Quintana, (703) 787-1101.

    Dated: March 14, 1995.
Donald T. Sant,
Acting Associate Director for Royalty Management.
[FR Doc. 95-11869 Filed 5-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11644]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ES-930-05-4111-11-241A; LAES 46330; LAES 46331]


Louisiana: Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas 
Leases

    Under the provisions of Public Law 97-451, a petition for 
reinstatement of oil and gas leases LAES 46330 and LAES 46331, East 
Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, was timely filed and accompanied by all 
required rentals and royalties accruing from January 1, 1995, the date 
of termination.
    No valid lease has been issued affecting the lands. The lessee has 
agreed to new lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per 
acre and 16\2/3\ percent. Payment of $500 in administrative fees and a 
$125 publication fee has been made.
    The Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate the leases 
effective January 1, 1995, subject to the original terms and conditions 
of the leases and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. 
This is in accordance with section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral 
Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 188 (d) and (e)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina A. Goodwin at (703) 440-1534.

    Dated: May 2, 1995.
Carson W. Culp, Jr.,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 95-11644 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-M
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 3, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10651

Summary Calendar

CHRISTOPHER JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RAMOS, Lieutenant, Smith Unit; V.R. RAMIREZ, Correctional

Officer, Smith Unit; DAVIS, Captain, Smith Unit; FONDREN,

Assistant Warden, Smith Unit; GENTRY, Major, Smith Unit; GARZA,

Captain, Smith Unit; C.C. BELL, Warden; JAMIE BAKER, Assistant

Regional Director,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CV-94

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Jones, Texas prisoner # 656546, appeals from the

district court’s dismissal with prejudice as frivolous of his

complaint purportedly filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 241. We

review the district court’s dismissal for abuse of discretion. 

See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Jones contends that numerous employees at the prison
No. 06-10651

-2-

facility engaged in a conspiracy against him for filing inmate

grievances. Jones sought relief under a criminal statute. See

§ 241; United States v. Bigham, 812 F.2d 943, 945 (5th Cir.

1987). The decision whether or not to bring criminal charges

rests solely with the prosecutor. See Bigham, 812 F.2d at 945;

United States v. Carter, 953 F.2d 1449, 1462 (5th Cir. 1992); see

also Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir. 1990). 

Accordingly, Jones has not shown that the district court abused

its discretion in dismissing his claims against the defendants as

frivolous. See Siglar, 112 F.3d at 193. 

Jones’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal as frivolous. 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the

district court’s dismissal of Jones’s complaint as frivolous

count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Jones is warned

that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not

be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or

appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility

unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

See § 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 1 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 2 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 3 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 4 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 5 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 6 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 7 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 8 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 9 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 10 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 11 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 12 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 13 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 14 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 15 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 16 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 17 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 18 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 19 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 20 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00039-TLS-PRC   document 28   filed 11/02/15   page 21 of 21
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       9
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<CASH>                                  36,003
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                       104,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            324,965
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                  16,622
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                    16,810
<LOANS>                                783,126
<ALLOWANCE>                             (9,185)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,317,676
<DEPOSITS>                             795,406
<SHORT-TERM>                           241,799
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     71,869
<LONG-TERM>                             71,043
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                25,336
<OTHER-SE>                             112,223
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>       1,317,676
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         18,438
<INTEREST-INVEST>                        5,100
<INTEREST-OTHER>                         1,769
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        25,307
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                       7,766
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      11,908
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   13,399
<LOAN-LOSSES>                              303
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                      (1,036)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         11,789
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          5,278
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>               5,278
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                             3,478
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.38
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                            4.43
<LOANS-NON>                              2,456
<LOANS-PAST>                             1,351
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                         21,429
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                         9,318
<CHARGE-OFFS>                              769
<RECOVERIES>                               229
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                        9,185
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                     9,185
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                          0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      0

</TABLE>
Joseph Kennard SHELTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6789.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit10.8**THIRD    AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT     THIS AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of December 1, 2006, by and between    DIONEX CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation    (“Borrower”), and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL    ASSOCIATION (“Bank”). RECITALS     WHEREAS, Borrower is currently indebted to Bank pursuant to the    terms and conditions of that certain Credit Agreement between    Borrower and Bank dated as of November 13, 2000, as amended    from time to time (“Credit Agreement”).     WHEREAS, Bank and Borrower have agreed to certain changes in the    terms and conditions set forth in the Credit Agreement and have    agreed to amend the Credit Agreement to reflect said changes.     NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and    sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto    agree that the Credit Agreement shall be amended as follows:     1. The first paragraph on page 1 of the Agreement is    hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following substituted    therefor:     “THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of November 13,    2000, by and between DIONEX CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation    (“Borrower”), and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL    ASSOCIATION (“Bank”).”     2. Section 1.1(a) is hereby amended by deleting    “December 31, 2006” as the last day on which Bank    will make advances under the Line of Credit, and by substituting    for said date “December 31, 2009,” with such    change to be effective upon the execution and delivery to Bank    of a promissory note dated as of December 1, 2006 (which    promissory note shall replace and be deemed the Line of Credit    Note defined in and made pursuant to the Credit Agreement) and    all other contracts, instruments and documents required by Bank    to evidence such change.     3. The following is hereby added to the Credit Agreement as    Section 1.4:     “SECTION 1.4.  COLLECTION OF    PAYMENTS.  Borrower authorizes Bank to collect all    interest and fees due under the Line of Credit by charging    Borrower’s deposit account number 4496-876350 with    Bank, or any other deposit account maintained by Borrower with    Bank, for the full amount thereof. Should there be insufficient    funds in any such deposit account to pay all such sums when due,    the full amount of such deficiency shall be immediately due and    payable by Borrower.”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:14-CR-14-TLS 

 ) 

RICHARD A. COUNCIL ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

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

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 229], filed on May 4, 2017. The Defendant has waived objection to 

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

Recommendation [ECF No. 229] 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), if applicable and necessary, the plea of guilty to the offenses charged in Counts 

One (1) and Two (2) of the Indictment are hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty 

of such offenses. 

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

order.

SO ORDERED on May 23, 2017. 

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Jan KARBIN, petitioner, v. Marcia KARBIN.

No. 12-1081.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.