alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
December 1, 2011



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GARY HORNDESKI, M.D. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00975

- CV V.

ALVIN G. WILLIAMSON , Appellee

____________________

Today the Court heard the parties ’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal from the

judgment signed by the court below on August 5, 2011. Having considered the motion

and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs incurred by reas on of this

appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

We further order the mandate be issued immediately.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0364. HAROLD R. LILLY v. CITY OF CARROLLTON, GEORGIA.

Harold Lilly sued the City of Carrollton for damages. On February 12, 2015,

the trial court entered an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Lilly then

filed three pro-se motions seeking discovery, certain injunctive relief, and the entry

of default judgment in his favor. On March 11, the trial court entered three separate

orders denying those motions, and on April 10, Lilly filed this application for

discretionary appeal seeking review of the March 11 orders. We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

Because no provision of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) applies here, Lilly was not

required to file an application for discretionary appeal. If a party applies for

discretionary review of a directly appealable order, we grant the application under

OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). But Lilly does not have a right of direct appeal. 

The trial court’s order dismissing Lilly’s complaint was a final, directly

appealable judgment. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1); Gist v. DeKalb Tire Co., 223 Ga.

App. 397, 398 (1) (477 SE2d 616) (1996). Thus, Lilly had a right to appeal that

judgment within 30 days of its entry. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). He did not do so. 

Instead, he filed three post-judgment motions that did not seek to set aside or

otherwise invalidate the dismissal order, but instead requested various other forms of

relief. The effect of the trial court’s dismissal, however, was to terminate the action

so that Lilly’s claims are no longer pending. See Gresham v. Harris, 329 Ga. App.

465, 467 (765 SE2d 400) (2014). Unless the dismissal order is set aside, Lilly has no

right to any of the affirmative relief requested in his post-judgment motions. 

Accordingly, this application seeking review of the denial of the post-judgment

May 07, 2015
motions is moot. See Randolph County v. Johnson, 282 Ga. 160 (1) (646 SE2d 261)

(2007) (“An appeal becomes moot if the rights insisted upon could not be enforced

by a judicial determination.”). It is therefore DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

See OCGA § 5-6-48 (b) (3).

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.

05/07/2015
|   | Date:  May      17, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/  Laura Lee      Stewart                     |
|--------|------------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                               |   |   | Laura      Lee Stewart                                    |
|   |                               |   |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer                |
|   |                               |   |   |                                                      |
|   |                               |   |   |                                                      |
|   |                               |   |   |                                                      |
|   |                               |   |   |                                                      |
|   | Date:  May      17, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/  Matthew P.      Deines                     |
|   |                               |   |   | Matthew      P. Deines                                    |
|   |                               |   |   | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                               |   |   | Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer           |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1997 (AUDITED) (RESTATED) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MEDJET INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,491,040
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,554,763
<PP&E>                                         369,094
<DEPRECIATION>                                 180,025
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,862,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          220,493
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,709
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,634,358
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,862,258
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,719,984
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,578,248)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,578,448)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,578,448)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.68)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION 
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The
undersigned, Laura B. Hamilton, the Chief Executive Officer of MTS Systems
Corporation (the Company), has executed this Certification in connection with
the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2008 (the
Report).

The
undersigned hereby certifies that:

1. The Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

Date: November
25, 2008

|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ LAURA B. HAMILTON                       
|                                            
|                                            
|Laura B. Hamilton                           
|Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer

---
#### Village of Elmsford, Respondent, v Knollwood Country Club, Inc., Defendant, and Town of Greenburgh, Appellant.

[875 NYS2d 560]-

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that certain roads are public roads, owned and to be maintained by the defendant Town of Greenburgh, the defendant Town of Green-burgh appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered May 24, 2007, as, upon reargument, adhered to an original determination in an order entered January 5, 2007, denying its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) and (10) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order entered May 24, 2007 is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and upon reargument, so much of the order entered January 5, 2007, as denied the motion of the defendant Town of Greenburgh pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) and (10) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against is vacated, that branch of the motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) is granted, and that branch of the motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (10) is denied as academic.

The Supreme Court erred in, upon reargument, adhering to so much of the order entered January 5, 2007 as denied that branch of the Town’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it. “[A] plaintiff, in order to have standing in a particular dispute, must demonstrate an injury in fact that falls within the relevant zone of interests sought to be protected by law” *(Caprer v Nussbaum,*36 AD3d 176, 183 [2006]). The plaintiff Village of Elmsford lacked standing to seek a judgment declaring that the Town owned and was responsible for maintaining the subject roads, which were located outside the boundaries of the Village, *935as the Village failed to demonstrate that it had a legally cognizable interest that would be affected by such a determination *(see Village of Port Chester v City of Rye,*234 AD2d 453 [1996]; *Schiavoni v Village of Sag Harbor,*201 AD2d 716 [1994]). The Village alleged that it had a contractual obligation to provide fire protection services to residents on the subject roads, and that it was hindered from performing that duty by road barriers erected by the defendant Knollwood Country Club, Inc. However, the Village failed to allege that it experienced any difficulty in complying with its contractual obligation to provide fire protection services as a result of inadequate road maintenance. Moreover, we note that the Village entered into the agreement requiring it to provide fire protection services with full knowledge of the barriers that were erected several months earlier.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Spolzino, J.P., Dillon, Ritter and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio JIMENEZ-AGUILERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50489.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 12, 2010.

Sara J. O’Connell, Assistant U.S., U.S. Department of Justice, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William R. Burgener, Law Office of William R. Burgener, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Sergio Jimenez-Aguilera appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following *271his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jimenez-Aguilera contends that the district court failed to consider properly his personal circumstances and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not procedurally err and Jimenez-Aguilera’s sentence is reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 17

- 00418

- CV
IN RE ULLJA KUNTZE

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 14, 2017, Kuntze filed a document which is properly characterized
as a petition for writ of mandamus. In a separate proceeding, In Re Kuntze , 10

- 17

- 00384

- CV, we have explained that such a document is not filed within an existing appeal, but

ra ther is docketed as its own proceeding. See In re Kuntze , 10

- 17

- 00384

- CV, 2017 Tex. App.

LEXIS 12038 (Tex. App.

— Waco Dec. 27 , 2017 , orig. proceeding).
In this proceeding, Kuntze is critical of the Clerk of this Court for not responding

to Kuntze’s demands by the deadline set by Kuntze and for failing to notify the trial court
clerk of what Kuntze perceives as deficiencies in the clerk’s record. Kuntze seeks to haveIn re Kuntze Page 2

the Court’s Clerk removed from office. Kuntze’s complaint is frivolous. We do not have
ju risdiction to remove the Clerk in this manner.
Kuntze’s petition is dismissed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Petition dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 3, 2018 [OT06]
EXHIBIT 8.1
 LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES
  Jurisdiction ofName of Company
    
    EstablishmentJames Hardie 117 Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaJames Hardie Aust Holdings Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaJames Hardie Austgroup Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaJames Hardie Australia Management Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaJames Hardie Australia Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaJames Hardie Australia Finance Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaJames Hardie Building Products Inc.
    
    United StatesJames Hardie Europe B.V.
    
    NetherlandsJames Hardie International Finance B.V.
    
    NetherlandsJames Hardie International Finance Holdings Sub I B.V
    
    NetherlandsJames Hardie International Finance Holdings Sub II
B.V
    
    NetherlandsJames Hardie International Holdings B.V.
    
    NetherlandsJames Hardie N.V.
    
    NetherlandsJames Hardie New Zealand Limited
    
    New ZealandJames Hardie Philippines Inc.
    
    PhilippinesJames Hardie Research (Holdings) Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaJames Hardie Research Pty Ltd
    
    AustraliaJames Hardie U.S. Investments Sierra Inc.
    
    United StatesN.V. Technology Holdings A Limited Partnership
    
    AustraliaRCI Pty Ltd.
    
    Australia
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30493-30494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14266]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Meeting of the 
Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting 
on June 22, 2001, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Friday, 
June 22, 2001--1:00 p.m. until the conclusion of business.
    The Subcommittee will discuss the need for revising 10 CFR Part 54, 
``Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power 
Plants.'' The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze 
relevant issues and facts, and to formulate proposed positions and 
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the 
concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be 
accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are 
open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the 
Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral 
statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made.
    During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along 
with any of its consultants who may be present, may exchange 
preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance 
of the meeting.
    The Subcommittee will then hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and other interested 
persons regarding this review.

[[Page 30494]]

    Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the Chairman's ruling on 
requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time 
allotted therefor, can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone 301/415-7364) between 
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT). Persons planning to attend this meeting 
are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the 
agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

    Dated: May 31, 2001.
James E. Lyons,
Associate Director for Technical Support, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 01-14266 Filed 6-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP.; AAA Bonding Agency, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-20727

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 2, 2012.

Charles Wylie Scarborough, Marcus Scott Sacks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Elizabeth Frances Kar-pati, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Nick J. Digiovanni, Esq., Locke, Lord, Bissell & Liddell, L.L.P., Chicago, IL, Neale Andersen Shields, Locke, Lord, Bis-sell & Liddell, L.L.P., Alan Neil Magen-heim, Attorney, Magenheim & Associates, Gerald Walter Guerinot, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

*391Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This case is remanded to the district court for its decision applying this court’s decisions in *AAA Bonding Agency, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security,*447 Fed.Appx. 603 (5th Cir.2011).

REMANDED.

*

 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.
# C_2010327EN.01001701.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/17

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2010/C 327/08

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 20.8.2010 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 20.8.2010-31.12.2010 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Stock or Group of stocks | GFB/89- |
| Species | Forkbeards (Phycis blennoides) |
| Zone | Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of VIII and IX |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 532287 |

Date and time of closure

20.8.2010

Duration

20.8.2010-31.12.2010

Member State

Spain

Stock or Group of stocks

GFB/89-

Species

Forkbeards (Phycis blennoides)

Phycis blennoides

Zone

Community waters and waters not under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries of VIII and IX

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

532287

Web link to the decision of the Member State:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LECONTE ONEAL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10075

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00275-WHA-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 13, 2012

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Leconte Oneal appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine

base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He challenges

the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a

warrantless probation search. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Franklin, 603

F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2010), we affirm.

FILED

FEB 17 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

1. The police officers had probable cause to believe that Defendant resided

in room 310 of the Windsor Hotel. A known informant, speaking face to face with

police, told them that Defendant was selling drugs at that address. The informant

gave Defendant’s name, full address, and birth year. He/she was credible because

he/she used drugs and thus was familiar with sellers, and he/she was specifically

told that there would be no leniency for revealing information. Police corroborated

the tip through the facts that the sole occupant of the room in question had the

exact birth date of Defendant, that he had a prior criminal drug record, and that the

hotel was known for drug selling. See generally United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d

919, 924–26 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing the factors for reliability of an informant’s

tip). 

2. For similar reasons, the police officers had reasonable suspicion to

believe that Defendant had violated the terms of his probation by selling drugs.

AFFIRMED.