alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JIMMY RAY NEWMAN v. CELATHA GENE NEWMAN

No. 7317DC107

(Filed 11 July 1973)

Appeal and Error § 39 — time for docketing record on appeal

Appeal is subject to dismissal for failure to docket the record on appeal within ninety days after the date of judgment appealed from.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Harris, Judge,*24 July 1972 Session of Surry County District Court.

*675Sometime prior to April 1972 the plaintiff and defendant entered into a separation agreement which provided in part for the payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of $25.00 per week for the support of their four minor children. On 5 July 1972 the plaintiff applied for and obtained an absolute divorce based upon separation of the parties. Defendant was not present nor heard on her two affirmative claims for relief filed in answer to the divorce complaint. On 14 July 1972 the defendant-wife filed a motion in the cause requesting that the case be reopened so that she could be heard on her two affirmative claims for relief. Such motion was allowed, evidence was taken, and the court ordered the plaintiff to pay defendant $200.00 per month for the support of the four minor children born of the parties.

*Folger & Folger by Fred Folger, Jr. for plaintiff appellant.*

*Gardner, Gardner and Bell by Fred L. Johnson for defendant appellee.*

CAMPBELL, Judge.

It is imperative that attorneys be familiar with the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina as well as with the statutory enactments of this State concerning appellate practice contained in Chapter 1, Article 27 of the North Carolina General Statutes.

Failure to comply with either these Rules or the applicable statutes will subject the appeal to dismissal.

There being no extension of time to docket the record on appeal with this Court in the instant case, Rule 5 of the Court of Appeals requires that the record be docketed within 90 days after the date of judgment appealed from.

Judgment in the instant case was dated 27 July 1972. By virtue of Rule 5 this appeal must have been docketed on or before 25 October 1972; it was not docketed until 4 December 1972. For failure to comply with the Rules of Practice, the appeal may be dismissed. Rule 48.

Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record and find no error. The evidence warrants the court’s findings of fact, and the facts found support the judgment.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Britt and Baley concur.
#### Joe Alan GOLAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D02-4073.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 30, 2003.

*348CASANUEVA, Judge.

Joe Alan Golan challenges the order of the trial court dismissing his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

In his motion, Golan alleged that he pleaded to trafficking in amphetamine. He further alleged that the three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court is illegal based on our opinion in *Taylor v. State,*818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), *review dismissed,*821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002). A claim that a mandatory minimum sentence was illegally imposed is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion where the error is apparent on the face of the record. *See Sims v. State,*838 So.2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); *Leath v. State,*805 So.2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

*Taylor*held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, which provided for the imposition of mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses, is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution. In 2002, the legislature enacted chapters 02-208, 02-209, 02-210, 02-211 and 02-212, Laws of Florida which reenacted the provisions originally contained in chapter 99-188. The reenactment was retroactive to July 1, 1999. *See Green v. State,*839 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). In *Green,*this court held that the reenactment of the sentencing provisions of chapter 99-188 cannot be applied retroactively because this would violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions.

Golan alleged that he committed the offense of trafficking in amphetamine within the *Taylor*window. *See Green,*839 So.2d at 750 n. 1. Therefore, Golan has presented a facially sufficient claim for relief. *See Sims,*838 So.2d 658. The trial court dismissed Golan’s motion without prejudice to refile pending review of *Taylor*in the Florida Supreme Court. However, on May 29, 2002, prior to the issuance of the trial court’s order, the State filed a voluntary dismissal of its petition for review. *See State v. Taylor,*821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002) (table).

Therefore, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further consideration of Golan’s claim. If Golan is correct that the trial court imposed a three-year mandatory minimum for trafficking in amphetamine where the offense was committed within the *Taylor*window, the trial court shall resentence him under the 1997 version of the statute. *See Green,*839 *349So.2d 748. We certify conflict with the Fourth and Fifth District cases with which we disagreed in *Green.*

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Joseph Simeon SMITH, Defendant.

No. COA17-1161

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 4, 2018

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following committee meeting:

*Name of Committee:*                         Board of Visitors, United States Military Academy.                     

*Date:*                         Wednesday, March 2, 2005.                     

*Place of Meeting:*                         Veterans Affairs Conference room, Room 418, Senate Russell Building, Washington, DC.                     

*Start Time of Meeting:*                         Approximately 10 a.m.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Colonel Shaun T. Wurzbach, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996-5000, (845) 938-4200.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Proposed Agenda:*                     Organization Meeting of the Board of Visitors. Review of the Academic, Military and Physical Programs at the USMA. All proceedings are open.                

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-2054  Filed 2-2-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Exhibit 8  List of Principal
Subsidiaries



|                         |  |                              |  |                                                          |  |                 |  |                                             |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | ---------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Name of company          |  | Trading name (if applicable) |  | Country of registration (or incorporation) and operation |  | Holding         |  | Proportion of voting rights and shares held |  | Nature of business     
|                         |  |                              |  |                                                          | 
|Bracklands Ltd*          |  | N/a                          |  | England and Wales                                        |  | Ordinary shares |  | 100%                                        |  | Property Co            
|                         |  |                              |  |                                                          | 
|Clark Retail Ltd*        |  | TM Retail                    |  | Scotland                                                 |  | Ordinary shares |  | 100%                                        |  | Retailing              
|                         |  |                              |  |                                                          | 
|Forbuoys Ltd             |  | TM Retail                    |  | England and Wales                                        |  | Ordinary shares |  | 100%                                        |  | Retailing              
|                         |  |                              |  |                                                          | 
|Martin Retail Group Ltd* |  | TM Retail                    |  | Scotland                                                 |  | Ordinary shares |  | 100%                                        |  | Retailing              
|                         |  |                              |  |                                                          | 
|TM Vending Ltd           |  | N/a                          |  | England and Wales                                        |  | Ordinary shares |  | 100%                                        |  | Corporate Activities   
|                         |  |                              |  |                                                          | 
|Tog Ltd*                 |  | N/a                          |  | England and Wales                                        |  | Ordinary shares |  | 100%                                        |  | Intermediate Holding Co



|* | 100% held by a subsidiary undertaking
|- | -------------------------------------
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY C. ROTE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES; et al., Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 35017
D.C. No. 3:19

- cv - 01988

- MO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021 * *
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Timothy C. Rote appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 action alleging federal and state law claims

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAY 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 35017

dismissal based on res judicata

. S tewart v. U.S. Bancorp , 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) . We affirm in part, vacate in part , and remand. The D istrict Court for the D istrict of Columbia did not abuse its discretion in transferring this action to the District of Oregon

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (providing for transfer to a district where an action might have been brought); Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc. , 211 F.3d 495, 498

- 99 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth factors for transfer of venue and standard of review)

. The district co urt dismissed this action as precluded by the prior judgment entered in District Court Case No. 3:19

- cv - 00082

- MO. However, th is prior judgment has been vacated by our contemporaneous disposition in appeal No. 19

- 35847 and therefore no longer has preclusiv e effect on this action. See Cal. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Thompson , 321 F.3d 835, 847 (9th Cir. 2003) ( o nce a decision of the district court is reversed or dismissed , the judgment cannot serve as the basis for a disposition on the grounds of res judicata or collateral estoppel ). We vacate the district court’s judgment dismissing this action and remand for further proceedings

. On remand the district court will address Rote’s motion for disqualification

. The district court imposed pre - filing requirements on Rote but the requisite process for such an order was not followed

. See Ringgold

- Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles , 761 F.3d 1057, 1061

- 67 (9th Cir. 2014) ( standard of review;3 20

- 35017

discussing procedural and substantive standards for a federal pre

- filing order)

. We vacate the pre - filing order without prejudice to reimposing it using the requisite
process
. The motion s for disqualification (Docket Entry No. 53) and to supplement the record on appeal (Docket Entry No. 54) are denied.
E ach party will bear its own costs on appeal. AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part ; and REMANDED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4840 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 398
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4840

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 22 (legislative day, March 19), 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                              May 18, 2010

 Reported by Mr. Lieberman, with an amendment and an amendment to the 
                                 title
  [Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, as the ``Clarence D. 
                         Lumpkin Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CLARENCE D. LUMPKIN POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at <DELETED>1979</DELETED>1981 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, 
Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ``Clarence D. Lumpkin Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Clarence 
D. Lumpkin Post Office''.
            Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to designate the 
        facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1981 
        Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, as the `Clarence D. Lumpkin 
        Post Office'.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 398

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4840

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, as the ``Clarence D. 
                         Lumpkin Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 18, 2010

        Reported with an amendment and an amendment to the title
```
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RUSSELL T. ADAMS

No. 7226SC760

(Filed 22 November 1972)

Criminal Law § 155.5— failure to docket record on appeal in apt time

Though the record on appeal was not docketed in apt time, the court on appeal reviewed the record and found it to be without prejudicial error.

Appeal by defendant from *McLean, Judge,*17 April 1972 Schedule C Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Meck-lenburg County.

Defendant was tried on his plea of not guilty to a bill of indictment charging him with uttering a forged check drawn on the account of Acrow Carolina, Inc., payable to defendant in the amount of $152.30. The State offered evidence to show that shortly after defendant visited the office of Acrow Carolina, Inc., on or about 15 December 1970 it was discovered that ten printed blank checks were missing, that the check described in the indictment was one of these, that the purported signature of the company official thereon was forged, and that on 16 December 1970 defendant endorsed and cashed the check at a convenience store. Defendant took the stand, admitted he had endorsed and cashed the check, but testified that it had been given him by a passenger who had ridden in defendant’s taxicab and who represented to defendant that he was authorized to sign *641checks on the company’s account. The jury found defendant guilty as charged in the bill of indictment, and from judgment imposing a sentence upon the verdict, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorneys General Claude W. Harris and James E. Magner for the State.*

*T. O. Stennett for defendant appellant.*

PARKER, Judge.

The judgment appealed from was dated 19 April 1972. The record on appeal was docketed in this Court on 7 September 1972, which was more than ninety days after the date of the judgment appealed from. No order of the trial tribunal extending the time for docketing appears in the record. For failure of appellant to docket the record on appeal within the time allowed by the rules of this Court, this appeal is subject to dismissal. Rule 5, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals. *State v. Simpson,*14 N.C. App. 456, 188 S.E. 2d 535; *State v. Cook,*11 N.C. App. 439, 181 S.E. 2d 172.

Nevertheless, we have carefully reviewed the record and prejudicial error sufficient to warrant a new trial is not shown. The only assignment of error noted in the record, that the trial court erred in allowing the solicitor too great latitude in cross-examining defendant as to his prior criminal record, we find without merit. *State v. Weaver,*3 N.C. App. 439, 165 S.E. 2d 15, *cert. denied,*275 N.C. 263.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jonathan Antonio RICHARDSON, Defendant.

No. COA17-1313

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: January 15, 2019

NO ERROR.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

MARVIN FREEMAN , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee.

No. 4D 1 8

- 146

[ April 26, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.85 0 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fif teenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Glenn D. Kelley , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 1983

- CF

- 001374

- AXXX

- MB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Logan T. Mohs, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required for appell ee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

M AY , D AMOORGIAN and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
STATE of North Carolina v. Edward SMITH, Jr.

No. 187P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Joseph P. Lattimore, Attorney at Law, for Smith, Edward (Jr.)

Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Special Deputy Attorney General, Locke Bell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of June 2018 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4598 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4598

To provide the heads of agencies with direct-hire authority to appoint 
 qualified candidates to positions relating to information technology, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2014

  Mr. Garcia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide the heads of agencies with direct-hire authority to appoint 
 qualified candidates to positions relating to information technology, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Top Tech for USA Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. DIRECT-HIRE AUTHORITY FOR POSITIONS RELATING TO INFORMATION 
              TECHNOLOGY.

    (a) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, 
or regulation, the head of an agency may exercise direct-hire authority 
to appoint qualified candidates to positions relating to information 
technology, including web or digital systems design and development.
    (b) Termination of Authority.--The direct-hire authority described 
in subsection (a) shall terminate 5 years after the date of enactment 
of this Act.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given 
        ``Executive agency'' in section 105 of title 5, United States 
        Code.
            (2) Direct-hire authority.--The term ``direct-hire 
        authority'' means the authority described in section 3304(a)(3) 
        of such title.
                                 <all>
```