alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 18, 2016. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 18, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0345. THE MARCUS MASHBURN, JR. et al. v. CITY OF CUMMING, GEORGIA.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 14CV17943
#### ZINSSER et al., Respondents, v. KOCH et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by August Zinsser and others against Reinhart G. Koch and others. A. O. Cass, for appellants. H. E. Lippincott, for respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BURR-BROWN CORPORATION FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED APRIL 1, 2000

</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                1,000
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                 APR-1-2000
<CASH>                       399,448
<SECURITIES>                 31,671
<RECEIVABLES>                68,285
<ALLOWANCES>                 700
<INVENTORY>                  53,051
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             571,205
<PP&E>                       222,988
<DEPRECIATION>               124,359
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               680,885
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        74,925
<BONDS>                      250,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>        0
<PREFERRED>                  0
<COMMON>                     581
<OTHER-SE>                   347,911
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 680,885
<SALES>                      90,554
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             90,554
<CGS>                        40,760
<TOTAL-COSTS>                40,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             25,901
<LOSS-PROVISION>             18
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           1,227
<INCOME-PRETAX>              26,053
<INCOME-TAX>                 7,556
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          18,497
<DISCONTINUED>               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>              0
<CHANGES>                    0
<NET-INCOME>                 18,497
<EPS-BASIC>                0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                0.31


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 of United Companies  Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of  operation of the
Company.

Date: March 31, 2005                       By:    /s/ Robert M. Carmichael
                                                  ________________________
                                           Name:  Robert M. Carmichael
                                           Title: President and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authentications,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature
that  appears  in typed  form  within the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required  by  Section  906,  has been  provided  to United  Companies
Corporation and will be retained United  Companies  Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1
**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**

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                May 22, 2006 |   | By:/s/                William V. Schara |
|-----------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|                              |   | William                V. Schara        |
|                              |   | Chief                Financial Officer  |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fernando ACUNA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-40196

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 9, 2009.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Oscar Maria Alvarez, Law Office of Oscar Alvarez, McAllen, TX, for Defendant Appellant.

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Fernando Acuna-Perez (Acuna) appeals his 80 month sentence following his guilty *153plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine.

Acuna first argues that the district court erred by enhancing his base offense level by two levels for possession of a dangerous weapon. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Acuna asserts he was unaware of the presence of any firearms in the house where the cocaine was found. A defendant’s guidelines offense level may be enhanced under § 2D1.1(b)(1) if the possession of a firearm by a coconspirator was reasonably foreseeable. *See United States v. Hernandez,*457 F.3d 416, 423 (5th Cir. 2006). Because there is evidence that Acuna’s codefendant possessed a firearm while he and Acuna were engaged in rewrapping a large quantity of cocaine, the district court did not clearly err by inferring that his codefendant’s possession of a dangerous weapon was reasonably foreseeable. *See United States v. Thomas,*120 F.3d 564, 574 (5th Cir.1997); *United States v. Castillo,*77 F.3d 1480, 1498 (5th Cir.1996).

Acuna also argues that the district court erred by denying his request for a downward adjustment of his offense level based on his minor or minimal role in the offense. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. One of Acuna’s codefendants stated that, when he arrived at the stash house, Acuna stated that he had been sent by other conspirators to help with the impending cocaine delivery. In addition, Acuna acknowledged that he agreed to help rewrap a large quantity of cocaine, which was a step leading to its further distribution. Because the district court’s finding that Acuna was not a minor or minimal participant is plausible in light of the record read as a whole, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Acuna was not entitled to this reduction. *See United States v. Villanueva,*408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *153the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EL PASO BEHAVIORAL HOSPITAL LLC,

D/B/A/ RIO VISTA BEHAVIORAL

HEALTH HOSPITAL

,

Appellant,

v.

MARK V. TORREZ, Individually and as

Representative of A.V.T., a Minor

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00342

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2022DCV2944)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We

further order Appellant to pay all costs of this appeal and that this decision be certified below for

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

                      Certification of the Chief Financial
                    Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

CERTIFICATION

I, Joseph McSherry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Optigenex Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the period presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

(5) The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: February 10, 2006

/s/ Joseph McSherry,
--------------------
Joseph McSherry
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Optigenex Inc.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Systematic Entomology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    ECMU
                    SEL Twitter FeedSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Systematic Entomology Laboratory Docs





leafhopper_homeheadline bar Checklist of Leafhopper Species 1758-1955 (Hemiptera: Membracoidea: Cicadellidae and Myserslopiidae) with Synonymy and Distribution [Catalogue of the Homoptera, Fascicle 6, Abridged] USDA, Agricultural Research ServiceSystematic Entomology Laboratory National Museum of Natural HistorySmithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 20560-0168 USA e-mail: stuart.mckamey@usda.gov The checklist is provided in two formats: HTML files linked to Rich Text Format files, for online viewing and searching, and PDF format, for downloading and printing. If you cannot read the files, contact me at the address above. PDF files on this page require the free Adobe Acrobat ReaderTM. AdobeTM also provides free PDF tools for the visually impaired.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### In the Matter of John L. Short, Appellant, v Nassau County Civil Service Commission, Respondent.

Appeal by-petitioner from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Pantano, J.), dated December 22,1983, which denied his motion to vacate a prior judgment of the same court and to order a rehearing pursuant to CPLR 5015 on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner has failed to show that the memorandum excerpts which he characterized as “newly discovered” are in any way substantially different from other evidence which he has had in his possession since at least 1978. As such, the evidence he now proffers does not truly appear to be “newly discovered” *(cf. Janowitz Bros. Venture v 25-30120th St. Queens Corp.,*75 AD2d 203). Moreover, the similarity between this “new” evidence and petitioner’s hearing evidence leads us to conclude that the excerpts would be cumulative in nature and would at best succeed only in impeaching the credibility of one of the hearing witnesses. Finally, in light of the substantial factual findings which sustain petitioner’s dismissal, petitioner has failed to show that the proffered evidence would probably have produced a different result at the disciplinary hearing (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]; *Mully v Drayn,*51 AD2d 660). Accordingly, we affirm the order of Special Term. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4430

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BERNARD EVERETT REESE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00337-TDS-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Everett Reese pleaded guilty, pursuant to a 

conditional plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a 

firearm. Counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967) brief, stating that there are no meritorious issues 

for appeal, but that Reese wished to challenge the denial of his 

motion to suppress a shotgun found during a search of his 

apartment. Reese filed a pro se supplemental brief reiterating 

the arguments by counsel. The Government declined to file a 

brief. We affirm.

In considering the denial of a suppression motion, we 

review the district court’s legal determinations de novo and its 

factual findings for clear error. United States v. Kelly, 592 

F.3d 586, 589 (4th Cir. 2010). The court “view[s] the facts in 

the light most favorable to the Government, as the party 

prevailing below.” United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534 

(4th Cir. 2013). The court also “defer[s] to the district 

court’s credibility findings, as it is the role of the [trial] 

court to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a 

pre-trial motion to suppress.” United States v. Griffin, 589 

F.3d 148, 150-51 n.1 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

We have reviewed the transcript of the motion to 

suppress hearing and the district court’s detailed ruling on the 
3

motion and find no clear error in the district court’s finding 

of facts or error in its legal conclusions. We defer to its 

credibility findings. Accordingly, there is no reason to 

reverse the ruling. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Reese’s conviction and sentence. This court 

requires that counsel inform Reese, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Reese requests that a petition be filed, but counsel 

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel 

may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Reese. 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.

AFFIRMED
# L_2009011EN.01008301.xml

| 16.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 11/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 11/83

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 14 January 2009

appointing the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Assistant Supervisor

(2009/30/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (1), and in particular Article 42(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of a list of candidates drawn up by the Commission on 21 October 2008, in accordance with Article 42(1) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, following a public call for candidates, with a view to the appointment of the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Assistant Supervisor,

Whereas the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Assistant Supervisor must be appointed by common accord between the European Parliament and the Council, for a period of five years from 17 January 2009,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following are appointed for the period from 17 January 2009 to 16 January 2014:

| — | European Data Protection Supervisor: Peter HUSTINX, |
| --- | --- |

—

European Data Protection Supervisor: Peter HUSTINX,

| — | Assistant Supervisor: Giovanni BUTTARELLI. |
| --- | --- |

—

Assistant Supervisor: Giovanni BUTTARELLI.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect from the date of its adoption.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 14 January 2009.

For the European Parliament

The President

H.-G. PÖTTERING

For the Council

The President

A. VONDRA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

1

---
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10-C

<Page>

                     THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "AMENDMENT"), dated
and effective as of September 25, 2001, is entered into by and between Avatex
Corporation (the "COMPANY"), and Robert H. Stone ("EMPLOYEE").

         The Company and Employee hereby agree that this Amendment amends the
Employment Agreement dated and effective as of November 12, 1996, as amended by
the Amendment thereto dated as of February 1, 1998, and the Second Amendment
thereto dated as of September 1, 1999, by and between the Company and Employee
(the "AGREEMENT"), as follows:

         1.   Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by changing the date
specified therein to January 31, 2004.

         2.   Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, all other terms
and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective
on the date and year first above written.


AVATEX CORPORATION
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Robert H. Stone

By:
    ---------------------------
    Melvyn J. Estrin
    Co-Chief Executive Officer