alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, 

SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 

Attorneys at Law -. i. J 

10 Madison Avenue, Suite 402 

., . Morristown, NJ 07960 

,..-a i % <: $ Telephone: 973.656.1600 .......... ..- Facsimile: 973.656.1 61 1 

*-: rf.c !'s' www.ogletreedeaklns.com nnptd f . 

e 

d ig 23 r2. .:i 

May 12,2008 

VIA OVERNIGHT U.S. MAIL 

Honorable Richard M. Berrnan, U.S.D.J. 

Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

United States Courthouse 

500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 14A 

New York, New York 10007 

Re: Angel Vargas, et al. v. Midtown Air Condition and Ventilation, Ltd. 

Case No. 1:07-cv-03343-RMB 

Dear Judge Berman: 

This firm represents the defendant, Midtown Air Conditioning and Ventilation, Ltd 

("Defendant"). Earlier today, Defendant received ECF copies of a portion of Plaintiffs' 

Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. We write to respectfully request that 

the Court disregard Plaintiffs opposition or, in the alternative, grant Defendant until June 9, 

2008 to file its reply brief. 

The opposition to Defendant's motion was due on April 28, 2008. As Your Honor may recall, 

the Court selected this deadline at a conference convened on April 15, 2008 because Plaintiffs 

had missed the original April 4, 2008 deadline. In addition to issuing an oral Order from the 

Bench, the Court also issued a written Minute Order establishing a new deadline of April 28, 

2008. 

Despite the Court's leniency in extending Plaintiffs' deadline to oppose Defendant's motion, 

they have filed their opposition two weeks late, without consulting with counsel or the Court as 

to the reason for the delay. In circumstances such as this, it is well within the Court's discretion 

to disregard Plaintiffs' opposition in its entirety. 

If the Court declines to disregard Plaintiffs' opposition, Defendant respectfully requests until 

June 9,2008 to prepare its reply. The full period requested should be granted because Defendant 

has not yet received any of the exhibits submitted in support of plaintiffs' opposition. Thus, at 

Atlanta Austin . Birm~ngharn . Bloomfield Hills .Charleston .Charlotte . Chicago .Cleveland. Columbia. Dallas . Creenshoro . Greenville Houston Indianapolis .Jackson .Kansas Cltv 

Los Angclcs Memphis -Miami . Morristown .Nashville Philadelphia .Phoenix. Pittsburgh Raleigh . San Anton10 .St. Louis . St. Thomas .Tarnpa .Tnrrancc 'Tucson .Washington 

A South Carolinn Professional Corporation Mark Diana - NJ Manuging Sh~zrrholder 

Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 23 Filed 05/13/2008 Page 1 of 2
:33 asolqury 'uoslo~o~ .bsg Lq) al!urrs3~~ put! .s.n (~GW 

samsopuz~ 

uorlt!wqjt! u! .uo!]~soddo 

aql luasa~d 'aruil IuepuaTaa saop IOU anreq aql hl!l!qe 01 Ma!Aal aq, s,!q!qxa paqnelle 01 s'lasunos 

Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 23 Filed 05/13/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 14 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 14 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. DAILEY

No. 202 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 551.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 August 1977.
Case 1:06-cv-15019-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT C 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 18-5 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 18-5 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 18-5 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 18-5 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 18-5 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 18-5 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 18-5 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 7 of 7
----

| Named      Executive Officer                                                                                       | Base      Salary for 2007 | Base      Salary for 2008 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|
| Steven      GoldbyExecutive      Chairman and Former Chief Executive Officer                                  | $250,000(1)               | $150,000                  |
| Rex      S. JacksonChief      Financial Officer and Former Executive Vice President and General      Counsel  | $330,000(2)               | $330,000                  |
| Isy      GoldwasserChief      Executive Officer                                                               | $420,000                  | $420,000                  |
| Dr.      W. Henry Weinberg, Chief Science Officer and Former Chief Technical      Officer                     | $420,000                  | $252,000                  |

----
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1823 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit employment 

of children in tobacco-related agriculture by deeming such employment 

as oppressive child labor. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 12, 2019 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. REED, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit 

employment of children in tobacco-related agriculture by 

deeming such employment as oppressive child labor. 

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 ‘‘Children Don’t Belong on 

5 Tobacco Farms Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TOBACCO-RELATED AGRICULTURE EMPLOYMENT 

7 OF CHILDREN. 

8 Section 3(l) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 

9 (29 U.S.C. 203(l)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1823 IS

1 (1) in the first sentence— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘in any occupation, or (2)’’ 

3 and inserting ‘‘in any occupation, (2)’’; and 

4 (B) by inserting before the semicolon the 

5 following: ‘‘, or (3) any employee under the age 

6 of eighteen years has direct contact with to7 bacco plants or dried tobacco leaves’’; and 

8 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘other 

9 than manufacturing and mining’’ and inserting ‘‘, 

10 other than manufacturing, mining, and tobacco-re11 lated agriculture as described in paragraph (3) of 

12 the first sentence of this subsection,’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of Kimball International,Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Robert F. Schneider, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

| Date: November 5, 2009 |   |                                                                        |
|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | /s/ Robert F. Schneider                                                     |
|                   |   | ROBERT F. SCHNEIDER    Executive Vice President,    Chief Financial Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                        US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                           105,768
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     78,751
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                      297,613
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 738,259
<PP&E>                                         2,440,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,287,523
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   896,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            807,828
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                      11,129,954
<OTHER-SE>                                   (11,009,545)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     896,998
<SALES>                                        1,294,838
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,294,838
<CGS>                                          1,271,216
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,271,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 859,077
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                (835,455)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (22,472)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (850,976)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (850,976)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (850,976)
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (850,976)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.39)
        



</TABLE>
#### STATE v. PILAND

No. 129 PC.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 367.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 January 1979. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 January 1979.
#### STATE v. BURGESS

No. 81 PC.

Case below: 11 N.C. App. 430.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 30 July 1971.
#### LEWIS v. COLLEGE

No. 107 PC.

Case below: 23 N.C. App. 122.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 December 1974.
Case 1:06-cv-15145-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15145-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15145-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15145-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15145-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15145-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15145-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15145-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15145-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15145-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15145-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15145-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15145-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6713-6714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2342]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, Predoctoral Research Training Grant 
in Biostatistics.
    Date: March 4, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

[[Page 6714]]

    Place: Four Points by Sheraton Bethesda, 8400 Wisconsin Avenue, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Carole H. Latker, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher 
Building, Room 3AN-18, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2848, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#462a27322d23342506282f212b3568282f2e68212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3955584d525c4b5a7957505e544a17575051175e564f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 1, 2005.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-2342 Filed 2-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 1:06-cv-15084-AKH Document 25 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-15084-AKH Document 25 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-15084-AKH Document 25 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 3 of 3
#### CLINE v. BROWN

No. 1 PC.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 209.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 February 1975.
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 1 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 2 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 3 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 4 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 5 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 6 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 7 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 8 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 9 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 10 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 11 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 12 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 13 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 14 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 15 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 16 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 17 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 18 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 19 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 20 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 21 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 22 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 23 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 24 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 25 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 26 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 27 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 28 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 29 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 30 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 31 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 32 of 33Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 33 of 33
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 9 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 9 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 9 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 9 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 9 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 5 of 5
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00165-CR

IN RE ROBERT WHITFIELD

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, Relator Robert Whitfield seeks a writ of mandamus 

compelling Respondent, the Honorable Deborah Oakes Evans, Judge of the 87th District 

Court of Freestone County, to provide him a free copy of all of his court records and 

transcripts to use in a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus.1

An indigent criminal defendant is not entitled to obtain a free copy of the record 

after exhausting his direct appeal in the absence of a specific, compelling reason. See In 

 

1 The petition for writ of mandamus has several procedural deficiencies. It does not include the certification 

required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). It also lacks a proper proof of 

service; a copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served on all parties to the proceeding and 

must contain proof of service. Id. 9.5. Because of our disposition and to expedite it, we will implement 

Rule 2 and suspend these rules in this proceeding only. Id. 2.
In re Whitfield Page 2

re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding) (per 

curiam); Eubanks v. Mullin, 909 S.W.2d 574, 576-77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, orig. 

proceeding); see also In re Petruccelli, No. 10-08-00010-CR, 2008 WL 257288, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Waco Jan. 30, 2008, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication). The record before us does not show that Whitfield has demonstrated a 

specific, compelling reason for his request.

Accordingly, Whitfield’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed May 30, 2018

Do not publish

[OT06]
Case 1:06-cv-15059-AKH Document 6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-15059-AKH Document 6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
31*^ ~TV>e

k \x v DECEIVED IN H^e\^v^\ COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

V„ APR 01 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

Y^-\H~OO0O<3*^ IH-V^-OOOCB- c0URT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

APR 01 2015

T*AoVyo>i^O ^z:>Ve.v^ ~^\-vmn,e ~^Y<&el Acosta, Cierk

VecVSoWv, -vY->cwe.«2» WVs CQV1A \*jvNV» TAq\>o>^^^o fe ^LV)ve„ ^ooe\Yrvr4\- <=s>^o>or->->*-«=» VV>e- S-o\\ o\^ >t*ac\ >">•* *^»vj^>-

4-.
jf^ ^ 5pe.VW=v>-~>V ^> &-v«- ec\ ~^=*v^> ^<2.~s=*\ „

V>-^c-c=v^O V^oX^^e^ \N^^><sTS\t=vv^\ W»tvV ^V>e. ^0>\j\^>^0\

3

W^veX* Kv^A QP^W (yC//Ay?>^A J. •j^^V^Z
"X. OrO Vv<sv^ov\ ce>\v^vx W-^Ov ^r=av \-«-ve ^.^^ corTTOcO

"\?-G- ^>cm \Q>3<SS, 0^n\o\ 'SVt^^a

&o«2>* \%-x ; ~"Se* ^^
•K^>^>eN\^ e.

\**n 6G3^ \^n <50 3>S _> A~£T1 <SO HO

XH-XMrOOOOVi \H-\h-ooqoS.

"vVev/xevo \<o eKW^eo ^or Vv^^N-^v^cT> <^?s»>J<2> \o\p\-o W-»o

^e^^e.^

V"vesxox>^o "So$^<
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 Health and Human Services

###### Administration for Children and Families

# AGENCY:

Children's Bureau (CB), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services.

# ACTION:

Correction notice to the following action: Invitation to comment on proposed data composites and potential performance areas and measures for the Federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR).

*Corrective Action:*                     The initial publication in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 7, 2005 (70 FR 67479) inadvertently omitted the date that the comments are due to the Children's Bureau. The due date for comments is December 7, 2005.                

Dated: November 17, 2005.

Reginia H. Ryan,

Director, Executive Secretariat, ACYF.

[FR Doc. 05-23206 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1119. RODRIGUEZ ASHMORE v. THE STATE.

Rodriguez Ashmore was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated sexual

battery, three counts of child molestation, one count of statutory rape, one count of

attempted child molestation, and one count of attempted aggravated child

molestation. We affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. Ashmore v. State, 323 Ga.

App. 329 (746 SE2d 927) (2013). In 2018, Ashmore filed a motion to vacate void

sentence, which the trial court denied on October 29, 2018. Ashmore subsequently

filed a notice of appeal on December 3, 2018. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of an appealable

order. 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, Ashmore filed his notice of appeal 35 days

after entry of the trial court’s order. Accordingly, Ashmore’s appeal is untimely, and

it 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.

March 01, 2019

03/01/2019