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:

A15D0042. CERTO, LLC. et al v. ROCK WEST INVESTMENTS II, LLC.

On September 9, 2014,Certo, LLC.filed an application for discretionaryappeal

of the superior court’s August 26, 2014 order granting Rock West Investments II,

LLC. a writ of possession and summary judgment on two counts. However, because

this case originated as a dispossessory action in magistrate court and issues remain

pending in the superior court, we lack jurisdiction.

The application in this case clearly shows that Rock West filed a dispossessory

proceeding in magistrate, asserting that Certo was a tenant holding over. Following

an adverse ruling in magistrate court, Certo appealed to the superior court, which

granted a writ of possession to Rock West. Certo then filed the instant application for

discretionary appeal. His application, however, is untimely. Generally, an application

for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order sought to

be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). But the underlying subject matter of an appeal

controls over the reliefsought in determining the proper appellate procedure. Rebich

v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 467-468 (448 SE2d 192) (1994). OCGA § 44-7-56 provides

that an appeal fromany dispossessory judgment must be filed within seven days ofthe

date the judgment was entered. See Ray M. Wright, Inc. v. Jones, 239 Ga. App. 521

(521 SE2d 456) (1999). Because Certo did not file its application within seven days

after the trial court’s order, the application is untimely, and we therefore do not have

jurisdiction to consider it.

Moreover, the application shows that although the trial court issued its ruling

on the writ of possession, the matter remained pending in the trial court. The superior

court’s order indicates, “The parties shall come before the Court for a hearing on

October 09, 2014
Plaintiff’s remaining claims . . . on Monday, October 20, 2014 . . . Failure to appear

could result in dismissal of your case or a default judgment being entered against

you.” Because the trial court’s order was not final, Certo was required to comply with

the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) in order to obtain appellate

review of this order. See Pace Constr. Corp. v. Northpark Assoc.,215 Ga. App. 438,

439 (450 SE2d 828) (1994). For these reasons, we lack jurisdiction over this

application, 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.

10/09/2014
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Nau, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 901]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered May 18, 1999, convicting him of falsely reporting an incident in the first degree (two counts) and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and arson in the third degree, upon a separate jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Jonas, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent that the defendant’s claims of ineffective assis*568tance of counsel involve matter dehors the record, they may not be reviewed on direct appeal *(see People v Bryan,*2 AD3d 452, 453 [2003]; *People v Scott,*276 AD2d 650 [2000]). The defendant’s contention that he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his *Miranda*rights *(see Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436 [1966]), is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Jackson,*241 AD2d 526 [1997]). In any event, there is no indication in the record that the defendant had limitations which prevented him from comprehending the immediate import of the warnings *(see People v Williams,*62 NY2d 285, 289 [1984]; *People v Alaire,*148 AD2d 731, 738-739 [1989]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.
STATE v. STEWART.

No. COA07-1199.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 20, 2008.

Certification Date June 9, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (05CRS59072).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.
                                  EXHIBIT 32.1
    CERTIFICATION OF SCOTT H. RECHLER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT
                       OF RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.,
  PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


I, Scott H. Rechler, Chief Executive Officer and President of Reckson Associates
Realty  Corp.  (the   "Company"),   certify  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

      1)    The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
            period ended  September 30, 2004 (the "Report")  fully complies with
            the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities
            Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated: November 2, 2004
                                    By           /s/ Scott H. Rechler
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Scott H. Rechler, Chief Executive Officer
                                       and President


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Reckson  Associates  Realty  Corp.  and will be  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I,
Robert J. Driessnack, certify that:
  1. I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Intermec, Inc.; and
  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.
  
  /s/Robert J.
Driessnack
 Robert
J. Driessnack
 Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer
  March
31, 2010
PACK v. HAPPY RENTZ, INC.

No. COA07-129.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 2, 2007.

Certification Date October 22, 2007.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. 938993).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
March 27, 2002

Mr. Pelham Smith
4213 Southwestern Blvd.
Dallas, Texas 75225

Dear Pelham:

This letter shall confirm the following  agreement  regarding  your  departure
from HydroChem Industrial Services, Inc. ("HydroChem"):

      1. Your  resignation  as Chief  Financial  Officer  was  accepted  as of
February 11, 2002,  and your  resignation  as Executive  Vice President and an
employee will be accepted effective June 30, 2002.

      2. Your  current  base  compensation  shall  continue  in effect for the
remainder of your employment.

      3.  After  the   termination  of  your  employment  on  June  30,  2002,
HydroChem will pay you severance  compensation  in an amount equal to one year
of base  compensation at your current rate.  HydroChem will pay this amount in
installments as if your employment had continued through June 30, 2003.

      4. Between now and June 30, 2002,  you will remain  responsible  for our
international   business  and  will  also  assist  me  on  various   corporate
development  and similar  projects.  You will also continue to be available as
needed to  provide  transition  assistance.  It is  contemplated  that most of
your time will be spent in the Dallas  office,  but you will be required to be
in Houston and /or to travel elsewhere on company  business as needed.  During
the period  between  now and June 30,  2002,  you will  continue  to adhere to
HydroChem's policies and procedures as you have done in the past.

      5. You will not exercise  your  Extended  Deferral  Elections  under the
Deferred  Bonus Plan of HydroChem  Industrial  Services  (the  "Plan").  Also,
notwithstanding  anything contained herein or elsewhere to the contrary,  your
resignation  as Executive  Vice President and an employee as of June 30, 2002,
as contemplated by this letter agreement,  shall be deemed to be a termination
without Cause for the purpose of section 1.1 (a) of the Plan.

      6. This letter  agreement  constitutes the entire  agreement  between us
on this subject  matter,  and it supersedes and replaces any prior  agreements
on this  subject.  This letter  agreement may be amended in the future only by
a written instrument signed by both HydroChem and you.

If the foregoing is satisfactory,  please sign this letter below and return to
me.  A duplicate original is enclosed for your records.


                                          Sincerely,

                                          /s/ B. Tom Carter, Jr.
                                          ----------------------
                                          B. Tom Carter, Jr.
                                          Chairman of the Board and
                                          Chief Executive Officer


AGREED AND ACCEPTED

/s/ Pelham Smith
----------------
Pelham Smith
March 27, 2002
<PAGE>

                                                                   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

I, John F. Welch, Chief Executive Officer of CNA Surety Corporation (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the quarterly period
      ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


/s/ John F. Welch
-----------------------------

John F. Welch
President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       78
STATE v. William Billy BOWDEN, Jr.

No. 600P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of December 2007 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review to the Supreme Court of North Carolina:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of March 2008."
Order filed, January 21, 2015

.

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The



## First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01

- 14

- 00980

- CR

DAVID JAMES CHAPMAN , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appea l from the 183rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case 1421328



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due January 12, 2015

. See Tex. R. App. P.

35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. Th e

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed

timely, we issue the following order.

We order Billy Jalufka , the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file the record

in this appeal , if any, within 30 da ys of the date of this order

.

/s/ Harvey Brown

Acting individually
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF TOYMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC.

    The following list reflects the subsidiaries of Toymax International, Inc.
as of March 31, 2000.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              JURISDICTION OF  OWNERSHIP
                                                              ---------------  ---------
<S>                                                           <C>              <C>
Toymax (H.K.) Limited.......................................  Hong Kong          100%
Toymax (U.K.) Limited.......................................  United Kingdom     100%
Toymax Inc. ................................................  New York           100%
Toymax (Bermuda) Limited....................................  Bermuda            100%
Toymax (Canada) Limited.....................................  Canada             100%
Craft Expressions, Inc. ....................................  New York           100%
Go Fly A Kite, Inc. ........................................  Delaware           100%
Monogram International, Inc. ...............................  Delaware           100%
Funnoodle (H.K.) Limited....................................  Hong Kong          100%
Go Fly A Kite (H.K.)........................................  Hong Kong          100%
Monogram Products (H.K.) ...................................  Hong Kong          100%
Kenmax Far East Limited.....................................  Hong Kong          100%
Yaboom Limited..............................................  Hong Kong           50%
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          Independent Auditor's Consent

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-100176 and 333-100177 of Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-8 of
our report dated March 4, 2004, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
of Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and for
each of the years in the three year period ending December 31, 2003.

                                       /s/  Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, L.L.P.

Augusta, Georgia
March 26, 2004
Juanita RICHARDSON and Robert and Gloria Gower, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and Nationscredit Financial Services Corporation.

No. 240PA07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 19, 2007.

John H. Culver, III, Amy Pritchard Williams, Charlotte, Walter E. Dellinger, III, Washington, DC, McGlinchey Stafford, Anthony J. Rollo, Daniel T. Plunkett, New Orleans, LA, for Bank of America, Nationscredit Financial.

John Alan Jones, G. Christopher Olson, Raleigh, for Richardson, et al.

Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Jack L. Cozort, Eileen R. Youens, Raleigh, for N.C. Chamber.

Reed Johnston, Jr., Greensboro, for Consumer Credit Industry Association.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 643 S.E.2d 410.

*ORDER*

The Court allows defendant's petition for discretionary review as to defendant's issues Number 1, and 2. only. Plaintiffs' conditional petition for discretionary review is denied. North Carolina Chamber's conditional motion to file *Amicus Curiae* brief is allowed.

Defendant shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).

*440By order of the Court in Conference, this 19th day of July, 2007.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 823/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 823/2013 of 27 August 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for saithe in VI; EU and international            waters of Vb, XII and XIV flying the flag of Spain         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 823/2013                     

# of 27 August 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for saithe in VI; EU and international waters of Vb, XII and XIV flying the flag of                        Spain                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to 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), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and,                              to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international                              negotiations or agreements(2), lays down quotas for 2013.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2013.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 August 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 54.
STATE v. WINCHESTER

No. COA06-1505.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Rockingham (06CRS50256).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 5, 2018

NO. 03-18-00196-CR

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

David Delacruz, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the order granting a new trial by the trial court. Having reviewed the 

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial

court’s order. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s order granting a new trial and 

remands the case for further proceedings consistent with this Court’s opinion. The appellee shall 

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
Número Identificador

SEN2020 ______________

ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO

EN EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

PANEL ESPECIAL

AEQUITAS, LLC

Recurrente

v.

JUNTA DE 

PLANIFICACIÓN

Recurrido

KLRA201900413

REVISIÓN 

ADMINISTRATIVA 

procedente de la 

Junta de 

Planificación de 

Puerto Rico

Sobre: Impugnación 

del “Reglamento 

Para la Evaluación 

y Expedición de 

Permisos 

Relacionados al 

Desarrollo, Uso de 

Terrenos y 

Operación de 

Negocios” con 

vigencia del 7 de 

junio de 2019.

Panel integrado por su presidente, el Juez Bonilla 

Ortiz, la Jueza Mateu Meléndez1 y el Juez Marrero 

Guerrero2.

Bonilla Ortiz, Juez Ponente

SENTENCIA

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 12 de julio de 2024.

El 4 de marzo de 2020 emitimos una Sentencia en el 

presente caso. En ella atendimos el recurso de título 

como un recurso de revisión administrativa y declaramos 

nulo el Reglamento Conjunto para la Evaluación y 

Expedición de Permisos Relacionados al Desarrollo, Uso 

de Terrenos y Operación de Negocios, el cual fue aprobado 

por la Junta de Planificación el 7 de mayo de 2019.

Inconforme con nuestra Sentencia, el 10 de marzo de 

2021, la Junta de Planificación instó un recurso de 

certiorari ante el Tribunal Supremo. El 21 de junio de 

2023, éste expidió el auto de certiorari, dejando sin 

1 En virtud de la Orden Administrativa OATA-2024-083, se designa la 

Hon. Ana M. Mateu Meléndez en Sustitución de la Hon. Nélida Jimenez 

Velázquez.

2 En virtud de la Orden Administrativa OATA-2024-083, se designa al

Hon. Ricardo G. Marrero Guerrero, en Sustitución del Hon. Misael 

Ramos Torres.
KLRA201900413 2

efecto nuestra Sentencia, devolviéndonos el caso para 

que procediéramos a desestimar la Solicitud de Revisión

que instó AEQUITAS, LLC. 

II.

Por los fundamentos que anteceden y en atención al 

mandato de lo resuelto por el Honorable Tribunal Supremo 

en el recurso AC-2020-0049 consolidado con CC-2020-0320, 

DESESTIMAMOS la Solicitud de Revisión de epígrafe, que 

instó AEQUITAS, LLC.

Lo pronunció y manda el Tribunal y lo certifica la 

Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones.

Lcda. Lilia M. Oquendo Solís

Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones
IN RE M.T.T.

No. COA08-234.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 17, 2008.

Certification Date July 7, 2008.

Appeal from Richmond (07JT54).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Vicente Anido, Jr., Ph.D., hereby certify pursuant
to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that the Quarterly Report of ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated November 5, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Vicente Anido, Jr., Ph.D.        
|                       |  |  |  | Vicente Anido, Jr., Ph.D.            
|                       |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.