alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 14, 2022. 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, July 14, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22I0209. IN THE INTEREST OF L. M., A CHILD .
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2200120
#### Lawrence D. Seguin et al., Respondents, v Matthew J. Landfried, M.D., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[945 NYS2d 902]

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Tracey A. Bannister, J.), entered July 19, 2011 in a medical malpractice action. The order denied the motions of defendants-appellants for a change of venue.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed in the exercise of discretion without costs and the motions are granted

Memorandum: We agree with defendants-appellants (defendants) that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying their respective motions pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) seeking to change the venue of this medical malpractice action from Erie County to Genesee County *(see Costello v Forbes,*294 AD2d 856 [2002]). In support of their motions, defendants provided, inter alia, the physicians’ affirmations and nurses’ affidavits of 14 nonparty witnesses who treated Lawrence D. Seguin (plaintiff) at defendant United Memorial Medical Center in Genesee County and at Strong Memorial Hospital in Monroe County. The nonparty witnesses stated the nature of their treatment of plaintiff and their respective reasons for the inconvenience of traveling from their respective homes or places of work to Erie County *(see McLaughlin v City of Buffalo,*259 AD2d 1014, 1015 [1999]; *cf. Rochester Drug Coop., Inc. v Marcott Pharmacy N. Corp.,*15 AD3d 899 [2005]). Plaintiff Kathleen M. Seguin, who has asserted a derivative cause of action, moved to Erie County several months following plaintiffs treatment and it is upon the basis of her residence that the action was commenced in Erie County. Plaintiffs have “failed to demonstrate any other consideration that would favor [Erie] County as the proper venue of this action” *(McLaughlin,*259 AD2d at 1015; *see Costello,*294 AD2d at 856-857). We therefore conclude that defendants established that “the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change” of venue (CPLR 510 [3]; *cf. 1093 Group, LLC v Canale,*72 AD3d 1561, 1562 [2010]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
DEER CREEK RESERVOIRLatitude: 40.408Longitude: -111.529Elevation: 5420

DEER CREEK RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Peak Site Page...



Wolf Creek Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Atwater Site Page...



Atwater

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beaver Divide Site Page...



Beaver Divide

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brighton Site Page...



Brighton

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Daniels-Strawberry Site Page...



Daniels-Strawberry

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Thaynes Canyon Site Page...



Thaynes Canyon

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Trial Lake Site Page...



Trial Lake
# C_2021090EN.01000201.xml

| 17.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10160 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Nippon Telegraph and Telephoe Corporation/Industry One JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 90/02)

On 11 March 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10160. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10160. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                 779,317
<SECURITIES>                                        12,232,335
<RECEIVABLES>                                          412,956
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    13,830,115
<PP&E>                                               1,461,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                         502,419
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      15,036,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  587,728
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                80,115
<OTHER-SE>                                          14,368,630
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        15,036,473
<SALES>                                              2,062,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     2,062,373
<CGS>                                                1,629,128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        6,160,840
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (3,263,351)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (3,263,351)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (3,263,351)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (0.41)




</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20586

ADRIANE BEAMON,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

MCCALL-SB, INCORPORATED, doing business as Advantage BMW 

Midtown; GARRETT LEE BURLESON, doing business as Asset Hunters, 

L.L.C.; MARCUS A. BISHOP; ASSET HUNTERS, L.L.C.,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CV-2118

Before KING, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having considered the oral arguments as well as the parties’ briefs and 

pertinent portions of the record, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.

* 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

March 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-20586 Document: 00515337266 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2020
#### Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of East Hampton, Respondent, v Sheldon Bienstock et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 23, 2015

NO. 03

- 13

- 00381

- CR

Anthony Boyd Robertson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

t he record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay c osts, no adjudicati on of costs

is made.
# C_2021305EN.01003301.xml

| 30.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/33

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1252 and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1242 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

(2021/C 305/06)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that are presently designated in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1252 (2) and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (3) as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1242 (4) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities presently designated in the above-mentioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 should continue to apply to those persons and entities.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex X to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 26 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 31 December 2021, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

---

(1)  OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 272, 30.7.2021, p. 73.

(3)  OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 272, 30.7.2021, p. 4.

---
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 Q.E.P. Co., Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending February 29, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lewis Gould, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Lewis Gould                               
|Lewis Gould                                   
|Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director



May
19, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Q.E.P. Co., Inc. and will be retained by Q.E.P. Co., Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT
EILEEN JOHNSON, Appellant,
v. CCRC OPCO-SUN CITY CENTER, LLC d/b/a FREEDOM PLAZA SUN CITY CENTER; LIFE CARE SERVICES, LLC; HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES, INC., f/k/a HCP INC; and

ANGIE ROHER, Appellees. No. 2D23-45 December 27, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Paul L. Huey, Judge. Brian J. Lee of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellant. R. Ryan Rivas and Gina Brice Griffith of Hall Booth Smith, P.C., Tampa, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SILBERMAN, BLACK, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2360

ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KOURY CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CA-97-1028) Submitted: December 8, 1998 Decided: January 13, 1999 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur O. Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan A. Berkelhammer, Laura Deddish Burton, SMITH, HELMS, MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Arthur O. Armstrong appeals the district court’s orders granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, awarding Appellee costs and attorneys’ fees and enjoining Armstrong from commencing future actions against Appellee, its employees, or any other party without leave of court. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Armstrong v. Koury Corp. , No. CA-97-1028 (M.D.N.C. June 12 & Oct. 1, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2021463EN.01000201.xml

| 16.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10097 – AMD / XILINX)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 463/02)

On 30 June 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10097. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10097. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Freddie Lawson, Appellant.

— Kane, J.

On March 18, 1984, the residence of Carrie Komito was burglarized and a number of checks were taken therefrom. The next day, Ronnie Williams voluntarily surrendered to the local police in the Town of Fallsburg, Sullivan County, and admitted participating in the theft of the checks and the subsequent forgery of three of them. He implicated defendant in the forgery, and described in detail their perpetration of the crime and their acquisition of proceeds therefrom. Williams thereafter pleaded guilty to possession of a forged instrument, received a plea-bargained sentence and testified against defendant at trial.

During the course of the trial, a description of defendant’s activities included reference to the burglary of Komito’s resi*854dence and other wrongful acts, all uncharged crimes. Defendant’s timely objections to this testimony form the basis for one of the issues on this appeal. It is our view that evidence of the uncharged burglary was properly admitted into evidence after clear and appropriate limiting instructions by the trial court. Such evidence is highly probative to establish intent to commit the forgery and to possess the forged instrument, and its probative value outweighs any danger of prejudice to defendant *(see, People v Dales,*309 NY 97). The same rule applies to other wrongful acts which establish a motive for the attempt to relieve defendant of his heavy gambling debts. Williams testified that defendant took money belonging to him prior to the forgery and struck him following arguments about those gambling debts. On balance, we conclude that this proof was properly admitted into evidence *(see, People v Santarelli,*49 NY2d 241; *People v Allweiss,*48 NY2d 40; *People v Vails,*43 NY2d 364).

We also find other issues raised by defendant either without merit or not preserved for review on this appeal. The cross-examination of defendant, while vigorous, was within the bounds of propriety and any objectionable matters were properly ruled upon by the trial court. In short, defendant received a fair trial *(see, People v Lucas,*105 AD2d 545, 548, *lv denied*64 NY2d 1136, *cert denied*— US —, 106 S Ct 281; *People v Keppler,*92 AD2d 1032), and the sentence imposed was within the discretion of the court, neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Farrar, 52*NY2d 302, 305; *People v Semkus,*109 AD2d 902).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
2014. It is therefore not an appealable determination. Accordingly, we 

lack jurisdiction over this appeal and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.' 

„LAI,A; 

Hardesty 

Douglas 

qA 

cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge 

Peter Jason Helfrich 

Nye County District Attorney 

Attorney General/Las Vegas 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County Clerk 

J. 

In light of this disposition, all pending motions are denied as moot. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A 44Et99
# C_2021439EN.01000201.xml

| 29.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 439/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 439/2

---

Publication of the countervalues in national currency of the financial thresholds expressed in euro in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009

(2021/C 439/02)

Pursuant to the requirement under Annex I (B) of Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 (1), the financial thresholds applicable to certain categories of cultural goods should be converted into the national currencies of those Member States which do not have the euro as their currency and published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The countervalues listed hereafter were calculated on the basis of the average daily value of each of the currencies concerned, expressed in euro, during the 24 months ending on the last day of August 2021. These revised values take effect on 31 December 2021.

| EUR | 1 | 15 000 | 30 000 | 50 000 | 150 000 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| BGN Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 | 29 337 | 58 674 | 97 790 | 293 370 |
| CZK Czech koruna | 26,0958 | 391 438 | 782 875 | 1 304 792 | 3 914 376 |
| DKK Danish krone | 7,4509 | 111 764 | 223 528 | 372 547 | 1 117 641 |
| GBP Pound sterling | 0,8778 | 13 167 | 26 333 | 43 889 | 131 666 |
| HRK Croatian kuna | 7,5200 | 112 799 | 225 599 | 375 998 | 1 127 994 |
| HUF Hungarian forint | 349,9789 | 5 249 684 | 10 499 368 | 17 498 947 | 52 496 842 |
| PLN Polish zloty | 4,4536 | 66 804 | 133 607 | 222 679 | 668 037 |
| RON Romanian leu | 4,8482 | 72 723 | 145 446 | 242 410 | 727 230 |
| SEK Swedish krona | 10,4034 | 156 051 | 312 102 | 520 170 | 1 560 510 |

EUR

1

15 000

30 000

50 000

150 000

BGN Bulgarian lev

1,9558

29 337

58 674

97 790

293 370

CZK Czech koruna

26,0958

391 438

782 875

1 304 792

3 914 376

DKK Danish krone

7,4509

111 764

223 528

372 547

1 117 641

GBP Pound sterling

0,8778

13 167

26 333

43 889

131 666

HRK Croatian kuna

7,5200

112 799

225 599

375 998

1 127 994

HUF Hungarian forint

349,9789

5 249 684

10 499 368

17 498 947

52 496 842

PLN Polish zloty

4,4536

66 804

133 607

222 679

668 037

RON Romanian leu

4,8482

72 723

145 446

242 410

727 230

SEK Swedish krona

10,4034

156 051

312 102

520 170

1 560 510

---

(1)  OJ L 39, 10.2.2009, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


June 11, 2021


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2073


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2073 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined the Registration
Statement File No. 333-256198 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
FIRST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
LISTING OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
  NAMES OF SUBSIDIARIES
    
    ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OFLNC Holdings, Inc.
    
    NevadaFirst Acceptance Insurance Company, Inc.
    
    TexasFirst Acceptance Insurance Company of Georgia, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaFirst Acceptance Insurance Company of Tennessee, Inc.
    
    TennesseeAcceptance Insurance Agency, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaAlabama Acceptance Insurance Agency, Inc.
    
    AlabamaFirst Acceptance Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareTransit Automobile Club Inc.
    
    TennesseeUSAuto Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareAcceptance Insurance Agency of Tennessee, Inc.
    
    TennesseeAcceptance Insurance Agency of Texas, Inc.
    
    TexasAcceptance Insurance Agency of Illinois, Inc.
    
    Illinois