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:

A16A1666. RANDY EDWARDS v. THE STATE.

On April 25, 2016, plaintiff Randy Edwards, an indigent prisoner proceeding

pro se, filed this direct appeal from the trial court’s order denying his application for

an arrest warrant in this civil action. The order appealed from was entered on March

4, 2016. We lack jurisdiction for two reasons.

 First, because Edwards is incarcerated, his appeal is controlled by the Prison

Litigation Reform Act of 1996, OCGA § 42-12-1 et seq. Under OCGA § 42-12-8,

an appeal of a civil action filed by a prisoner “shall be as provided in Code Section

5-6-35.” And under OCGA § 5-6-35, the party wishing to appeal must file an

application for discretionary appeal to the appropriate appellate court. Because a

prisoner has no right of direct appeal in civil cases, we lack jurisdiction to consider

this direct appeal. See Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489, 490 (480 SE2d 24) (1997).

 Second, even if Edwards had a right of direct appeal here, this appeal is

untimely. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the trial court

order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a

notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. 

Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Here, Edwards filed

his notice of appeal 52 days after entry of the trial court order he seeks to appeal.

For the above reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of

jurisdiction.

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.

06/29/2016

June 29, 2016
claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment must show that the

defendant acted with "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs"). Specifically, respondents submitted evidence showing that Dr. Mahakian believed the drug Depakote to be safe for a patient with appellant's medical record and that Dr. Mahakian promptly discontinued the prescription upon appellant's request.

In the absence of contrary evidence submitted by appellant, this evidence entitled respondents to judgment as a matter of law on appellant's claim. Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 602-03, 172 P.3d 131, 134 (2007) (recognizing that when the party moving for summary judgment will not bear the burden of persuasion on an issue, that party may satisfy its summary judgment burden by "submitting evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim"). We acknowledge that appellant's proffered contrary evidence calls into question the objective reasonableness of Dr. Mahakian's belief that Depakote was safe for appellant. We conclude, however, that it would be unreasonable to infer from this evidence that Dr. Mahakian was deliberately indifferent to the risks inherent in prescribing Depakote to appellant. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Wood, 121 Nev. at 729, 121 P.3d at 1029 (recognizing that, while inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, those inferences must be reasonable).' As appellant

I-In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the affidavit attached to appellant's summary judgment opposition wherein appellant stated that he communicated to prison medical staff that the Depakote regimen was worsening his pain and that, in response to these communications, Dr. Mahakian increased the Depakote dosage. Although the record on appeal confirms that Dr. Mahakian increased the dosage of appellant's prescription, there is no record support for the remainder of continued on next page...

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947AJ.

Parraguirre 

# S i

Saitta J. failed to demonstrate that a question of material fact existed regarding Dr. Mahakian's deliberate indifference, summary judgment was proper,
and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

cc: Seventh Judicial District Court Dept. 2 Amadeo J. Sanchez Attorney General/Carson City White Pine County Clerk



### ...continued the above-described statement. In other words, the communications upon which appellant based his affidavit do not reasonably give rise to an inference that Dr. Mahakian was deliberately indifferent to appellant's medical needs when he increased the Depakote dosage. 

### See NRCP 56(e) (requiring an affidavit in opposition to a summary judgment motion to "set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence").

2 To the extent that appellant has raised other arguments on appeal, we conclude that these arguments do not warrant reversal of the district court's summary judgment.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3

(0) 1947A
----

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1)    | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of §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:  October                24, 2007 |   | /s/                Jason Gonzalez                    |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                              |   |                                                 |   |
|                                              |   | Jason                Gonzalez                        |   |
|                                              |   |                                                 |   |
|                                              |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer |   |
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made this 21st day of May, 2013, by and between PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and John A. Godfrey, an individual (“Executive”), with respect to the following facts and circumstances: 

RECITALS 

The Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated April 5, 2012 (the “Agreement”), with Executive
having a base salary of Four Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($475,000) per year. 
 On May 20, 2013, the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company increased Executive’s base salary to Five Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($525,000) per year, effective May 21, 2013. 

The Company and Executive desire to amend the Agreement to reflect Executive’s new salary. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 AMENDMENT 
 1. Article 3, Section 3.1 of the Agreement (Compensation) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new Article 3, Section 3.1: 

“3.1 Base Salary. In consideration for Executive’s services hereunder, the Company shall pay Executive an annual base
salary at the rate of Five Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($525,000.00) per year during each of the years of the Term; payable in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll schedule from time to time (less any deductions required for
Social Security, state, federal and local withholding taxes, and any other authorized or mandated similar withholdings).” 

2. Except as modified herein, all other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between
the terms of the Agreement and this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall apply. No modification may be made to the Agreement or this Amendment except in writing and signed by both the Company and Executive. 

  
 - 1 -









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
duly executed this 21st day of May, 2013. 

 

									
	EXECUTIVE	 		 	PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
				
	 /s/ John A. Godfrey
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Anthony M. Sanfilippo

	John A. Godfrey	 		 		 	Anthony M. Sanfilippo,
		 		 		 		 	Chief Executive Officer


  
 - 2 -
Motion granted, Appeals dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed July 11, 

2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00806-CR

NO. 14-22-00807-CR

NO. 14-22-00808-CR

ERIK U. LITTLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1488681, 1488682, & 1488683

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Erik U. Little has signed and filed a written request to dismiss his 

appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not delivered an 

opinion, we grant appellant’s request.

Accordingly, we order the appeals dismissed. We direct the clerk of the 

court to issue the mandates immediately. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Spain.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
---

|CERTIFICATION OF                             
|---------------------------------------------
|CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER                      
|PURSUANT TO                                  
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                      
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Douglas King, Chief Financial Officer of Greenlite Ventures
  Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company,
        for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2006, and to which this certification
        is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully complies with
        the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                   

| | By:    | /s/ Douglas King       
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Name:  | DOUGLAS KING           
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| | Date:  | February 22, 2007      

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will
  be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
  or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it
  relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and
  is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under
  the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
  before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation
  language contained in such filing.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Patrick KENNEDY.

No. 2003-KD-2393.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 22, 2003.

In re Kennedy, Patrick;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 98-1425; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-K-993.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., recused.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58757-58758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20273]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences; Notice 
of Meeting

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting:

    Name: Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences 
Advisory Committee (MPSAC), <greek-i>66.
    Date/Time: November 2, 2005 12 Noon-6 p.m.; November 3, 2005 8 
a.m.-6 p.m.; November 4, 2005 8 a.m.-3 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA 22230, Room 1235.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Morris L. Aizenman, Senior Science 
Associate, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Room 
1005. National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, 
VA 22230. (703) 292-8807.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning NSF science and education activities within the 
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences.
    Agenda: Briefing to new members about NSF and Directorate, 
Update on current status of Directorate, Meeting with Education and 
Human Resources Advisory Committee, Update on High Magnetic Field 
Subcommittee, Meeting of MPSAC with Divisions within MPS 
Directorate, Report on

[[Page 58758]]

NSF/MPS CyberScience Activities, Discussion of MPS Long-term 
Planning Activities.
    Summary Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed 
above.

    Dated: October 4, 2005.
Susanne E. Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-20273 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4644 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4644

To designate the buildings occupied by the Department of Transportation 
   located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, in the District of 
    Columbia as the ``James L. Oberstar United States Department of 
                   Transportation Building Complex''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2014

 Mr. Lipinski (for himself, Mr. Nolan, Mr. Peterson, Ms. McCollum, Mr. 
 Kline, Mr. Ellison, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Walz, Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Nadler, 
  Mr. Capuano, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Ms. Norton, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. 
Rahall, Mr. Cummings, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Michaud, 
  Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Sires) introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the buildings occupied by the Department of Transportation 
   located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, in the District of 
    Columbia as the ``James L. Oberstar United States Department of 
                   Transportation Building Complex''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The buildings occupied by the Department of Transportation located 
at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, in the District of Columbia shall 
be known and designated as the ``James L. Oberstar United States 
Department of Transportation Building Complex'' during the period in 
which the buildings are occupied by the Department of Transportation.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    With respect to the period in which the buildings referred to in 
section 1 are occupied by the Department of Transportation, any 
reference in a law, map, regulation, document, record, or other paper 
of the United States to those buildings shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``James L. Oberstar United States Department of 
Transportation Building Complex''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.2

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors theglobe.com, inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration  statements on Form
S-8 of theglobe.com, inc. of our report dated February 21, 2003 (except for Note
16,  as to which  the date is March  28,  2003),  relating  to the  consolidated
balance sheets of  theglobe.com,  inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002,
and the related consolidated statements of operations,  stockholders' equity and
comprehensive  loss, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2002,  which
report  appears  in the  December  31,  2002,  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K of
theglobe.com, inc.

Our report dated  February 21, 2003 (except for Note 16, as to which the date is
March 28, 2003),  contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company
has  suffered  recurring  losses from  operations  since  inception,  that raise
substantial  doubt  about  its  ability  to  continue  as a going  concern.  The
consolidated  financial  statements  do not include any  adjustments  that might
result from the outcome of that uncertainty.





/s/ Rachlin Cohen & Holtz LLP


Fort Lauderdale, Florida
September 22, 2003
Argued and submitted March 4,

affirmed April 3, 2003

#### In the Matter of the Suspension of the Driving Privileges of TRAVIS LEE PLATT, *Respondent, v.*DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DRIVER AND MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICES BRANCH (DMV), *Appellant.*

16-01-09484; A115869

66 P3d 571

David F. Coursen, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

No appearance for respondent.

Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Wollheim, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *Dinsmore v. DMV,*175 Or App 509, 28 P3d 1268 (2001), *rev allowed,*334 Or 631 (2002); *Cole v. DMV,*172 Or App 132, 17 P3d 573 (2001), *rev allowed,*334 Or 631 (2002).
# Official Journal L 339/2011

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2011.339.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 339 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5421 December 2011 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2011.339.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 339

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5421 December 2011

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 1312/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 as regards certain provisions relating to financial management for certain Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) No 1312/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 as regards certain provisions relating to financial management for certain Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 2041** 

ROZAIN ELIZABETH CASIE CHITTY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Lynchburg
. Norman K. Moon , Senior District Judge. ( 6:13

- cv - 00043

- NKM )

Submitted : November 14, 2013 Decided: December 4, 2013

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Mark A
. Yurachek, MARK ALLEN YURACHEK & ASSOCIATES, Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellant. Calvin Wooding Fowler, Jr., Joseph Ray Pope, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rozain Elizabeth Casie Chitty appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On appeal, Chitty ’s sole argument is that the district court erred in dismissing her complaint without providing her notice of the court’s intention and an opportunity to respond. But u nder § 1915(e)(2)(B), which governs proceedings in forma pauperis, a district court is directed to dismi ss a case “at any time” if the court finds that the case or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from a party who is immune from such relief. B ecause Chitty moved for and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis , § 1915(e)(2)(B) authorized the sua sponte dismissal effected by the district court. See Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199, 214 (2007) (noting Prison Litigation Reform Act allows sua sponte dismissal of in forma pauperis case for failure to state a claim, amon g other grounds). We therefore conclude that Chitty’s argument lacks merit , 1 and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

1 Chitty’s brief does not contend that any of her claims did, in fact, sufficiently state a claim for relief, and we therefore do not address that issue. See Suarez

- Valenzuela v. Holder , 714 F.3d 241, 248

- 49 (4th Cir. 2013) (holding issues not raised in ar gument section of opening brief are abandoned).3 We deny Liberty University ’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2 Even if the district court’s dismissal without prejudice would otherwise be a non

- appealable interlocutory order, see Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 199 3), the applicable t wo - year statute of limitations period on Chitty’s fraud claims has passed
. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01

- 243(A) (2013 Cum. Supp.). Thus, we conclude that the district court’s dismissal order is effectively final
.