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:

A19I0289. SAMUEL PRIOR v. THE STATE.

Samuel Prior seeks immediate review of the trial court’s order denying his

motion to suppress the results of a state-administered breath test. Along with his

application, Prior has submitted a certificate of immediate review signed by a

different judge than the one who signed the denial order. In light of this unexplained

discrepancy, we lack jurisdiction to consider the application.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), a partymay apply for interlocutory appellate review

“[w]here the trial judge in rendering an order, decision, or judgment, not otherwise

subject to direct appeal, . . . certifies within ten days of entry thereof that the order,

decision, or judgment is of such importance to the case that immediate review should

be had.” (Emphasis supplied.) By its terms, the statute requires the certificate of

immediate review to be signed by “the trial judge,” not by a different judge. Here, the

denial order wassigned by Judge JasonB. Thompson, but the certificate of immediate

review was signed by “T. Kyle King, Judge, Pro Hac.” Nothing in the application

materials explains why Judge King signed the certificate instead of Judge Thompson,

or indicates that Judge King was “the trial judge” when he did so. Compare Hourin

v. State, 301 Ga. 835, 837 (1) (804 SE2d 388) (2017) (evidence showed that judge

who signed underlying order was acting pursuant to an assignment order that had

expired, and judge who signed certificate was now “the trial judge” for the purpose

of OCGA § 5-34 (b)).

August 01, 2019
Because Prior’s certificate of immediate review does not comply with OCGA

§ 5-6-34 (b), this application is hereby DISMISSED. See Mauer v. Parker Fibernet,

LLC, 306 Ga. App. 160 (701 SE2d 599) (2010).

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.

08/01/2019
# EUR-Lex - 52005BP0392 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005BP0392

**European Parliament resolution on Draft amending budget No 6/2005 of the European Union for the financial year 2005, Section IV - Court of Justice - Establishment of the Civil Service Tribunal (12180/2005 - C6-0304/2005 - 2005/2159(BUD)) **

*
Official Journal 272 E , 09/11/2006 P. 0058 - 0058 *

P6_TA(2005)0392

Draft amending budget No 6/2005

European Parliament resolution on Draft amending budget No 6/2005 of the European Union for the financial year 2005, Section IV — Court of Justice — Establishment of the Civil Service Tribunal (12180/2005 — C6-0304/2005 — 2005/2159(BUD))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 272(4), penultimate subparagraph, thereof,

- having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 177 thereof,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities [1], and in particular Articles 37 and 38 thereof,

- having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2005, as finally adopted on 16 December 2004 [2],

- having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure [3],

- having regard to Preliminary draft amending budget No 7/2005 of the European Union for the financial year 2005, which the Commission presented on 5 September 2005 (COM(2005)0419),

- having regard to Draft amending budget No 6/2005, which the Council established on 3 October 2005 (12180/2005 — C6-0304/2005),

- having regard to Rule 69 and Annex IV of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0306/2005),

A. whereas the Council has decided to establish the Civil Service Tribunal,

B. whereas the date for the Civil Service Tribunal to become operational was brought forward to 2005,

1. Decides to create all posts requested for the Civil Service Tribunal in Preliminary draft amending budget No 7/2005 and to adjust the appropriations in Draft amending budget No 6/2005 accordingly;

2. Approves Draft amending budget No 6/2005 as amended;

3. Instructs its President to forward this resolution, together with the amendment to Draft amending budget No 6/2005, to the Council, the Commission and the Court of Justice.

[1] OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

[2] OJ L 60, 8.3.2005.

[3] OJ C 172, 18.6.1999, p. 1. Agreement amended by Decision 2003/429/EC (OJ L 147, 14.6.2003, p. 25).

--------------------------------------------------
William J. Smith (WJS-9137) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 21 MC 102 (AKH) 

FELIX VELARDE (AND WIFE, ESTNER 

CASTILLO) 

NOTICE OF THE 

BROOKF"IELD 

V. PARTIES' ADOPTION OF 

AMENDED ANSWER 

TO MASTER 

COMPLAINT 

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, LTD, ET. AL., 

CASE NUMBER: (AKH) 

07 CV 1544 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants BFP Tower C Co. LLC, BFP 

Tower C MM LLC and WFP Retail Co. L.P. (collectively the "Brookfield Parties"), as 

and for their responses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (CheckOff Complaint) Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above referenced action, 

hereby adopt the Brookfield Parties' Amended Answer to Master Complaint, dated 

October 16, 2007, which was filed in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower 

Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

WHEREFORE, the Brookfield Parties demand judgment dismissing the above 

captioned action as against each of them, together with their cost and disbursements. 

Case 1:07-cv-01544-AKH Document 13 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 1 of 2
Dated: New York, New York 

October22 2007 

Faust, Gqetz, Schenker & Blee, LLP 

BSPi Will/am J. Smithy·a~J~Y~7) 

A~tornevd for the Brookfield Parties 

Rec~or Street,:20f"~EZ~si 

NewP"brk, NY 10006 

(212) 363-6900 

Case 1:07-cv-01544-AKH Document 13 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01528-AKH Document 5-3 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 1
Clear All

        01 March 2023    

                    USS Hershel “Woody” Williams delivers supplies to Türkiye                 
                USS Hershel “Woody” Williams (ESB 4) arrived in Mersin, Türkiye, Feb. 28, to deliver disaster relief supplies to Turkish officials for those affected by the Feb. 6 earthquakes.            

        05 February 2023    

                    USS Nitze (DDG 94) arrives at Gölcük Naval Base in Türkiye                 
                The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Nitze (DDG 94) arrived at Gölcük Naval Base, Türkiye, for a scheduled port visit on February 3, 2023.            

        12 September 2022    

                    NATO Exercise Dynamic Mariner/Mavi Balina 22 begins in Mediterranean                 
                AKSAZ, Türkiye - NATO’s Exercise Dynamic Mariner-Mavi Balina 22 kicked off from Aksaz Naval Base Sept. 11.            

        09 September 2022    

                    USS Forrest Sherman Arrives in Aksaz, Turkey for Port Visit                 
                AKSAZ, Turkey - The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98) arrived in Aksaz, Türkiye for a scheduled port visit, September 9, 2022.            

        29 July 2022    

                    USS Forrest Sherman Arrives In Aksaz, Turkey For Port Visit                 
                AKSAZ, TURKIYE - The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98) arrived in Aksaz, Turkiye for a scheduled port visit, July 29, 2022.            

        18 July 2022    

                    USS Bainbridge (DDG 96) arrives in Aksaz, Turkey                 
                The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Bainbridge (DDG 96) arrived in Aksaz, Turkey for a scheduled port visit, July 18, 2022.             

        28 May 2022    

                    USS Arlington (LPD 24) and 22nd MEU join Turkish exercise                  
                San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship USS Arlington (LPD 24), attached to the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) and embarked 22 Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), arrived off the coast of Izmir, Turkey to support the Turkish-led multinational exercise EFES Combined Joint Live-Fire            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 15-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 15-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 15-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 15-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 15-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 5 of 5
|                                               |                             
|---------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------
|Exhibit 21.1                                   |                             
|Baylake Corp                                   |                             
|                                               |                             
|List of Subsidiaries                           | Jurisdiction of Organization
|Baylake Bank                                   | Wisconsin                   
|Baylake City Center LLC                        | Wisconsin                   
|Baylake Insurance Agency, Inc.                 | Wisconsin                   
|United Financial Services, Inc. (49.8%
 owned) | Wisconsin                   
|Baylake Investments, Inc.                      | Nevada                      
|Baylake Capital Trust II                       | Delaware                    

|  
|--
|  
|85

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bruce Anderson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.), rendered February 25, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The record indicates that the trial court did not undertake a "sufficiently 'searching inquiry’ ” of the defendant prior to allowing him to waive his right to counsel and proceed *pro se (see, People v Sawyer,*57 NY2d 12, 21, *rearg dismissed*57 NY2d 776, *cert denied*459 US 1178; *People v McIntyre,*36 NY2d 10, 17-18). It was therefore error for the court to grant the defendant’s request to relieve his attorney and to represent himself.

Moreover, the court should not have allowed the defendant to continue to proceed *pro se*once the defendant demonstrated *121by his conduct that his intent was not to pursue his self-representation in good faith, but was rather to disrupt the trial proceedings. During jury selection, the defendant became abusive, then insisted on being removed from the courtroom. Immediately prior to the commencement of trial, he attempted to flee the courtroom, necessitating his manacling. After indicating that he wished to make an opening statement, the defendant feigned muteness. Despite this unruly conduct, the the court thereafter dismissed the defendant’s appointed standby counsel based upon the defendant’s objection to the latter’s presence at the defense table. Following the direct testimony of the first prosecution witness, the defendant made statements directly to the jury rather than cross-examining the witness, and engaged in obstreperous conduct that required him to be bound, gagged and ultimately removed from the courtroom. The trial proceeded to its conclusion without the presence of either the defendant or his standby counsel in the courtroom and without any defense being presented.

A defendant has a constitutional right to proceed *pro se (Faretta v California,*422 US 806), but may forfeit that right by engaging in disruptive or obstreperous conduct "calculated to undermine, upset or unreasonably delay the progress of the trial” *(People v McIntyre, supra,*at 18), Further, part of the purpose of appointing standby counsel—which can be done even over the objection of the accused—is to have an attorney available to represent the accused in the event that termination of the defendant’s self-representation becomes necessary *(Faretta v California, supra*at 835, n 46; *People v Sawyer, supra,*at 22). Here, given the early warning signs of trouble, the court should not have dismissed the defendant’s standby counsel, who could have taken over the defense once the defendant’s conduct had forced the court’s hand *(cf., People v Allen,*37 Ill 2d 167, 226 NE2d 1, *cert denied*389 US 907).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Fiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LISA ANN COLMERY-PINKERTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-55810

D.C. No. 

5:14-cv-00726-JFW-PLA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 6, 2017** 

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. 

Lisa Colmery-Pinkerton appeals pro se the district court’s judgment

affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Colmery-Pinkerton’s

application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income

FILED

APR 10 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We review de novo, Ghanim v.

Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

Colmery-Pinkerton contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred

in not adopting the recommendation of “the SSA representative” that ColmeryPinkerton is unable to work. We construe Colmery-Pinkerton’s pro se pleadings

liberally. See Garmon v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 846 (9th Cir. 2016). 

Colmery-Pinkerton’s briefing indicates she intends the term “the SSA

representative” to refer to the attorney who represented her at her hearing before

the ALJ, and also perhaps to the vocational expert (“VE”) who testified at her

hearing. 

The ALJ did not err in disregarding the opening statement made by

Colmery-Pinkerton’s counsel during the hearing before the ALJ, arguing that

Colmery-Pinkerton was entitled to a disability finding. Although a claimant’s

counsel may introduce arguments in support of her case, such argument by counsel

is not sworn witness testimony that the ALJ must weigh in determining whether

the claimant is disabled. See 42 C.F.R.§§ 405.1030(b); 405.1036(c); 405.1036(d). 

The determination of a claimant’s ability to work is reserved to the ALJ. See

McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2011). 

2
 Colmery-Pinkerton asserts that the ALJ disregarded the VE’s testimony that

she was unable to work. To the contrary, the ALJ properly posed a series of

hypothetical questions to the VE regarding the limitations the ALJ found to be

supported by the record evidence and incorporated into the residual functional

capacity assessment. See Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th Cir 2001)

(“An ALJ must propose a hypothetical that is based on medical assumptions

supported by substantial evidence in the record that reflects each of the claimant’s

limitations.”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). The ALJ did not err in

relying on the VE’s response to a hypothetical that incorporated all of ColmeryPinkerton’s limitations that were supported by substantial evidence. Osenbrock,

240 F.3d at 1164.

AFFIRMED.

3
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 24355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11983]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-407-000]

Algonquin Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 8, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 4, 2001, Algonquin Gas Transmission Company 
(Algonquin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets proposed to be 
effective June 4, 2001:

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 600
Original Sheet No. 718
Sheet Nos. 719-798

    Algonquin states that the purpose of this filing is to amend its 
tariff, as suggested by the Commission in its April 12, 2001, Order 
Denying Clarification and Rehearing in Docket No. CP95-218-004, to 
include a generic waiver of the ``shipper must have title'' rule and a 
general statement that it will only transport for others on off-system 
capacity pursuant to its existing tariff and rates.
    Algonquin states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11983 Filed 5-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
Case 1:07-cv-05398-AKH Document 36 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05398-AKH Document 36 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05398-AKH Document 36 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>      0001046131
<NAME>     MIDAS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-26-1999
<CASH>                                          9,800
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  56,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,800
<INVENTORY>                                    65,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              154,900
<PP&E>                                        255,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                110,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                318,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          68,200
<BONDS>                                       111,000<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       27,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     83,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  318,200
<SALES>                                       183,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              183,200
<CGS>                                          97,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 149,500<F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (1,900)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              4,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                31,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                   12,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            18,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   18,800
<EPS-BASIC>                                      1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.09
<FN>
<F1> INCLUDES: CAPITALIZED LEASE OBLIGATIONS AND LONG-TERM DEBT
OF $9,600 AND $101,400, RESPECTIVELY.
<F2> INCLUDES: COST OF GOODS SOLD AND S,G & A EXPENSES
OF $97,900 AND $51,600, RESPECTIVELY.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 13 Filed 09/20/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 13 Filed 09/20/2007 Page 2 of 2
DOCSNY-271714v01 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

ARLEY RUIZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 - against - 

100 CHURCH, LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

07-CV-5317-AKH 

APPEARANCE 

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: 

Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for: 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court.

Dated: New York, New York 

 October 3, 2007 

 By:

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

 /s/ Judith R. Cohen___ 

Judith R. Cohen (JC-8614) 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Phone: (212) 277-6500 

Fax: (212) 277-6501 

Attorney for Defendant 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

Case 1:07-cv-05317-AKH Document 13 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-59497 and333-08139 on Forms S-8 of our reports dated October 6, 2008, relating tothe consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule ofNature’s Sunshine Products, Inc. and subsidiaries (which report expressesan unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to theadoption of Financial Accounting Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting forUncertainty in Income Taxes”) and the effectiveness of Nature’s SunshineProducts, Inc. and subsidiaries internal control over financial reporting(which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting because of material weaknesses),appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Nature’s SunshineProducts, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 
| /s/   Deloitte & Touche LLP |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                      |
| Salt Lake City, Utah                      |
| December 30, 2008                    |

 

----