alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Gregory NIES, et ux., petitioners, v. TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA.

No. 16-1305.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of Owners' Counsel of America, et al. for leave to file brief as *amici curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina denied.
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this

Memorandum Decision shall not be

regarded as p recedent or cited before any

court except for the purpose of establishing

the defense of res judicata, collateral

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE : ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE :

THOMAS E. LYNCH LOWELL A. SHROYER

Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana



## IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

THOMAS E. LYNCH, )

)

Appellant

- Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 49A05

- 1204

- PL

- 162

)

A RTHUR H. HUSER

, )

)

Appellee

- Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Theodore M. Sosin , Judge

The Honorable Burnett Caudill, Magistrate

Cause No. 49D02

- 1104

- PL

- 15955

September 24 , 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION

- NOT FOR PUBL ICATION

KIRSCH, Judge2



### Thomas E. Lynch appeals from the trial court's order entering judgment in favor of

Arthur H. Huser.

We affirm.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Indiana Appellate Rule 46 (A)(8)(a) provides as follows:

The argument must contain the contenti ons of the appellant on the issues

presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported

by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record

on Appeal relied on, in accordance with Rule 22.

Here, Appell ant has failed to support his argument with cogent reasoning and citation to

authorities in support of his position. The failure to make a cogent argument is equivalent to

a failure to file a brief. Bright v. Kuehl, 650 N.E.2d 311, 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 199 5).

Consequently, the issues presented here on appeal are waived, and the decision of the trial

court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

NAJAM, J., and MAY, J., concur.
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 05/11/10          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:       87,814
COMMITMENTS
   1,076    9,069    4,503   73,080   61,628   78,659   75,200    9,155   12,614

CHANGES FROM 05/04/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     12,766)
    -492     -116     -874   19,628   18,599   18,262   17,609   -5,496   -4,843

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     1.2     10.3      5.1     83.2     70.2     89.6     85.6     10.4     14.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       47)
       2       14        7       28       28       36       43
```

----

Updated May 14, 2010
<PAGE>


NUMBER CS-"CERTIFICATENUMBER"                           *"NUMBEROFSHARES"*SHARES

                           INTERPACKET NETWORKS, INC.
                             A DELAWARE CORPORATION

     THIS CERTIFIES THAT "StockholderName" is the record holder of
"SharesWrittenOut" ("NumberOfShares") shares of Common Stock of InterPacket
Networks, Inc., a Delaware corporation, transferable only on the share register
of said corporation by the holder, in person or by duly authorized attorney,
upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed or assigned.

     This certificate and the shares represented hereby are issued and shall be
held subject to all the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation and the
Bylaws of said corporation and any amendments thereto, to all of which the
holder of this certificate, by acceptance hereof, assents.

     A statement of all of the powers, designations, preferences and relative,
participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series
thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences
and/or rights may be obtained by any stockholder upon request and without
charge, at the principal office of the corporation, and the corporation will
furnish any stockholder, upon request and without charge, a copy of such
statement.

     WITNESS the Seal of the corporation and the signatures of its duly
authorized officers this "Day" day of "Month", "Year".

------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
           , Secretary                                   , President
-----------                                --------------


FOR VALUE RECEIVED _____________________________________ HEREBY SELL, ASSIGN AND
TRANSFER
UNTO__________________________________________________________________________
SHARES REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE AND DO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY
CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT ____________________________________ ATTORNEY TO TRANSFER
THE SAID SHARES ON THE SHARE REGISTER OF THE WITHIN NAMED CORPORATION WITH FULL
POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES.

DATED ____________, ______

IN PRESENCE OF _______________________________________________________________


NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS
WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.



                                        -----------------------------
                                                  (Stockholder)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

DUNCAN JASON SMITH , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 951

[ August 24, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Glenn D. Kelley , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2010

- CF

- 007004

- AXXX

- MB

.
Duncan Jason Smith, Madison, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

G ROSS , T AYLOR and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Manal PAULS, petitioner, v. Bonita J. HOFFNER, Warden.

No. 17-668.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 03/02/10          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:       46,394
COMMITMENTS
   4,778    5,049    4,609   26,840   30,905   36,227   40,563   10,167    5,831

CHANGES FROM 02/23/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,187)
     331        6       68      459    1,872      858    1,946    2,329    1,241

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    10.3     10.9      9.9     57.9     66.6     78.1     87.4     21.9     12.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       45)
      12        9       16       17       16       40       35
```

----

Updated March 2, 2010
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of XATA Corporation;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  Signature:
    
    /s/ Mark E. TiesName:
    
    Mark E. TiesPrint Title:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
A.I., petitioner, v. M.A.

No. 17-6521.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until January 29, 2018, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A0901. IN THE INTEREST OF N. O., et al., CHILDREN (FATHER).

This appeal arisesoutof adependency proceeding brought in January 2021with

respect to a group of nine siblings, all of whom are minors. Based on evidence

discovered during the course of the dependency case, the mother and the biological

father of the five youngest children (“the father”) were arrested and charged with

multiple counts of cruelty to children in the first degree. The parents were

subsequently released on bond in the criminal case. Each parent’s bond conditions

required, inter alia, that the parent “have no contact with minor children except as

allowed by the Division of Family and Children Services [“DFCS”].” Gwinnett

County DFCS, in turn, prohibited both parents from having any contact with any of

the nine children.

In October 2023, the Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) for the children filed a

petition for an emergency hearing, asserting that in late September, the parents had

made a video call to the oldest child, N. O. Given that this contact with the child

violated a condition set by DFCS and the parents’respective criminal bonds, the GAL

sought a “no contact”order from the juvenile court.Following a hearing, the juvenile

court entered an order barring the parents from having any contact with any of the

nine minor children. The father then filed this direct appeal from the no contact

order.1 We lack jurisdiction.

1 The mother, who is represented by separate counsel, is not a party to this

appeal.

February 06, 2024
Direct appeals generally may be taken from “[a]ll final judgments, that is to say,

where the case is no longer pending in the court below[.]” OCGA§ 5-6-34 (a) (1). See

also OCGA § 15-11-35 (providing for direct appeals from final juvenile court orders).

Thus, “an order is final and appealable when it leaves no issues remaining to be

resolved, constitutes the court’s final ruling on the merits of the action, and leaves the

parties with no further recourse in the trial court.” Yanes v. Escobar, 362 Ga. App.

896, 897 (870 SE2d 506) (2022)(punctuation omitted). Here, the order the father

seeks to appeal is not a final order because the dependency case remains pending

below, as does the legitimation petition the father filed with respect to the five

youngest children. To obtain immediate review of the trial court’s order, therefore,

the father was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in

OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), which include obtaining a certificate of immediate review from

the trial court. See Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551 (2) (787 SE2d 731) (2016).

The father’s failure to follow those procedures deprives us of jurisdiction over this

appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/06/2024
Calvin FORD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6763.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4439 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 30 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 29), 2020 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

extend the authority of the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services to issue priority review vouchers to encourage treatments for rare pediatric diseases. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4439 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Creating Hope Reau3 thorization Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO ISSUE PRIORITY RE5 VIEW VOUCHERS TO ENCOURAGE TREAT6 MENTS FOR RARE PEDIATRIC DISEASES. 

7 Section 529(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

8 Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff(b)(5)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘December 11, 2020’’ each 

10 place it appears and inserting ‘‘September 30, 

11 2024’’; and 

12 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘Decem13 ber 11, 2022’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2026’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 29, 

2020. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4544 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit predispute arbitration agreements that force arbitration of disputes arising from private education 

loans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2019 

Ms. DEAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit predispute 

arbitration agreements that force arbitration of disputes 

arising from private education loans, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Fair Legal 

5 Recourse for Private Student Loan Borrowers Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4544 IH

1 SEC. 2. ARBITRATION OF PRIVATE EDUCATION LOAN DIS2 PUTES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 140 of the Truth in Lend4 ing Act (15 U.S.C. 1650) is amended by adding at the 

5 end the following: 

6 ‘‘(h) ARBITRATION OF PRIVATE EDUCATION LOAN

7 DISPUTES.— 

8 ‘‘(1) NO VALIDITY OR ENFORCEABILITY.—No 

9 predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint10 action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with re11 spect to a dispute relating to a private education 

12 loan. 

13 ‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

14 ‘‘(A) PREDISPUTE ARBITRATION AGREE15 MENT.—The term ‘predispute arbitration agree16 ment’ means an agreement to arbitrate a dis17 pute that has not yet arisen at the time of the 

18 making of the agreement. 

19 ‘‘(B) PREDISPUTE JOINT-ACTION WAIV20 ER.—The term ‘predispute joint-action waiver’ 

21 means an agreement, whether or not part of a 

22 predispute arbitration agreement, that would 

23 prohibit, or waive the right of, one of the par24 ties to the agreement to participate in a joint, 

25 class, or collective action in a judicial, arbitral, 

26 administrative, or other forum, concerning a 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 4544 IH

1 dispute that has not yet arisen at the time of 

2 the making of the agreement.’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of enactment 

5 of this Act and shall apply with respect to any dispute 

6 or claim that arises or accrues on or after such date. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 01/19/10                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       46,800
COMMITMENTS
  12,077    3,200    6,485   19,032   24,119   37,594   33,804    9,206   12,996

CHANGES FROM 01/12/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:       -992)
     200    1,155     -675     -318   -1,468     -793     -988     -199       -4

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    25.8      6.8     13.9     40.7     51.5     80.3     72.2     19.7     27.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       57)
      13       11       16       22       20       42       45
```

----

Updated January 22, 2010
Mark Lee WOLFE, petitioner, v. Jason BRYANT, Warden.

No. 16-9139.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, David Pecker, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Media Operations, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|Date: November 13, 2003 |  | 
|                        |  | 
|                        |  |
Jimmy Lee THORNTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6305.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 6, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.