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:

A15A2055. MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS v. THE STATE.

Michael A. Williams was convicted of armed robbery and other crimes. We

affirmed his convictions on appeal in an unpublished opinion. Williams v. State, Case

No. A10A2348, decided January 23, 2002. Williams later filed an extraordinary

motion for new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence.1 By order entered

November 26, 2014, the trial court denied the motion. Williams subsequently filed

two motions for reconsideration, both of which the court denied.

2 On May 18, 2015,

Williams filed a notice of appeal to this Court. We lack jurisdiction for two reasons.

First, an order denying an extraordinary motion for new trial must be appealed

by application for discretionary appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (7); Balkcom v. State, 227

Ga. App. 327, 329 (489 SE2d 129) (1997). Williams’s failure to follow the

discretionary appeal procedure deprives us of jurisdiction to consider this direct

appeal. 

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

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

order. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). A trial court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration is

1 Although styled as an “Extraordinary Motion to Enter Viable Evidence on

Newly Discovered Evidence,” in actuality the motion was an extraordinary motion

for new trial, and both the trial court and Williams treated it as such.

2 These motions were styled, respectively, as “Motion for Reconsideration for

Extraordinary New Trial” and “Motion for Justification to Specify Denial of Motion

for Reconsideration for Extraordinary Motion for a New Trial.”

July 10, 2015
not subject to direct appeal, and the filing of such a motion does not extend the time

for appealing the underlying judgment – here, the denial of the extraordinary motion

for new trial. See Bell v. Cohran, 244 Ga. App. 510, 511 (536 SE2d 187) (2000).

Williams’s notice of appeal, filed nearly six months after entry of that underlying

judgment, was not timely.

For these 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.

07/10/2015
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT



TO SECTION 960 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the periodic report of Rancon Realty Fund IV (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Daniel L. Stephenson, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that I perform the functions of chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the Partnership, and that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership at the dates and for the periods indicated.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the
Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission



|                   |  |                                   
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2004 |  | /s/ Daniel Stephenson             
|                   |  | Daniel Stephenson, General Partner
|                   |  | Rancon Realty Fund IV
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 5, 2015

d0602 

# Order

Clerk June 5, 2015

150661

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150661

COA: 318654

Saginaw CC: 12

- 037836

- FH

STEPHANIE WHITE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to sch edule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.302(H)(1).

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order

addressing whether there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to supp ort a

determination that the arresting officer was lawfully in the defendant’s house when she

resisted or obstructed his attempts to arrest her son . The parties should not submit mere

restatements of their application papers.

The Criminal Defense Attorn eys of Michigan and Prosecuting Attorneys

Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups

interested in the determination of the issue presented in this case may move the Court for

permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2460

To authorize the payment of rewards to individuals furnishing information

relating to persons subject to indictment for serious violations of international humanitarian law in Rwanda, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 25, 2000

Mr. FEINGOLD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To authorize the payment of rewards to individuals furnishing information relating to persons subject to indictment for serious violations of international humanitarian

law in Rwanda, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF REWARDS PROGRAM TO IN4 CLUDE RWANDA.

5 Section 102 of the Act of October 30, 1998 (Public

6 Law 105–323) is amended—

7 (1) in the section heading, by inserting ‘‘OR

8 RWANDA’’ after ‘‘YUGOSLAVIA’’;
2

•S 2460 IS

1 (2) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ‘‘or the

2 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’’ after

3 ‘‘Yugoslavia’’; and

4 (3) in subsection (c)—

5 (A) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ immediately after

6 ‘‘REFERENCE.—’’; and

7 (B) by adding at the end the following:

8 ‘‘(2) For the purposes of subsection (a), the statute

9 of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda means

10 the statute contained in the annex to Security Council

11 Resolution 955 of November 8, 1994.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET--DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,974,407
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,819,593
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,990,791
<PP&E>                                      20,221,770
<DEPRECIATION>                               (917,921)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,648,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,614,696
<BONDS>                                      4,977,246
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,559
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,936,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,648,701
<SALES>                                      2,660,811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,907,927
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,725,983
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,935,644
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,695,489
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (29,330,307)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (29,330,307)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (1,339,996)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (30,670,303)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.97)


</TABLE>
# Marcus A. Hanna: A Featured Biography

**

----

Mark Hanna excelled in business before applying his considerable talent and enormous wealth to politics. He used both attributes to bolster the presidential campaigns of fellow Ohioans Rutherford Hayes in 1876 and James Garfield in 1880. In 1896 he supported another Ohioan, William McKinley. Managing a savvy, well-funded campaign, Hanna kept McKinley on his front porch, where he welcomed trainloads of voters traveling at Hanna's expense. This famous "front porch campaign" put McKinley in the White House and turned Hanna into a national political figure. President McKinley offered Hanna a cabinet post, but Hanna preferred a seat in the Senate, which he gained in 1897. The unusually high-profile freshman, who served as the president's closest advisor, played a key role in business-labor relations and became such a strong supporter of the proposed Central American canal that senators nicknamed it the "Hannama Canal." By 1904 Hanna was looking for another presidential candidate to support, but he never got the chance to run another campaign. Mark Hanna died of typhoid fever in 1904, just 67 years old.

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2434

To provide that amounts allotted to a State under section 2104 of the

Social Security Act for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 shall remain

available through fiscal year 2002.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 13, 2000

Mr. L. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. SARBANES,

and Mr. BURNS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To provide that amounts allotted to a State under section

2104 of the Social Security Act for each of fiscal years

1998 and 1999 shall remain available through fiscal

year 2002.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Children’s

5 Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Preservation Act of

6 2000’’.
2

•S 2434 IS

1 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND FISCAL

2 YEAR 1999 ALLOTMENTS UNDER SCHIP.

3 Notwithstanding subsection (e) of section 2104 of the

4 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd), amounts allotted

5 to a State under that section for each of fiscal years 1998

6 and 1999 shall remain available through September 30,

7 2002.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 2,
2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             750
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,823,422<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,960,030
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,784,202
<PP&E>                                       4,620,389<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,404,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,383,792
<BONDS>                                      3,521,519
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       245,962
<OTHER-SE>                                    (746,682)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,405,591
<SALES>                                      2,911,151
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,195
<CGS>                                        2,613,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,613,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               332,753
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             146,806
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (176,725)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (176,725)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.07)
<FN>
<F1>Represents Net Amount
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2




I, Javed
Latif, certify that:




1.
              
              I
      have reviewed this annual report for the fiscal year ended September 30,
      2008 on Form 10-K of En Pointe Technologies, Inc. (the
      “Registrant”);2.
              
              Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;3.
              
              Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
      report;4.
              
              The
      Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
      Registrant and have:
 
 (a) Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;
  (b)
Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and   (c) Disclosed
in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.
            
            The
      Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
      our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
      to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s
      board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      functions):





(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.










Date:
December  26, 2008







/s/ Javed Latif  Javed
Latif


Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSE L. GONZALEZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 500 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of December, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


The Board of Directors
Mexican Restaurants, Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-2271) on Form S-8 of Mexican Restaurants, Inc. of our report dated March 10,
2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of the Mexican Restaurants,
Inc. as of January 2, 2000 and January 3, 1999 and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the three
fiscal-year period ended January 2, 2000, which report appears in the January 2,
2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mexican Restaurants, Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
March 31, 2000
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20319

 Conference Calendar 

__________________

DONALD RANDLE,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SUPERIOR PRODUCTS COMPANY,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. CA-H-95-0771

- - - - - - - - - -

June 27, 1995

Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A complaint filed in forma pauperis can be dismissed sua

sponte if the complaint is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Cay

v. Estelle, 789 F.2d 318, 323 (5th Cir. 1986). A complaint is

frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Ancar v.

Sara Plasma, Inc., 964 F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992). This court

reviews the dismissal for an abuse of discretion. Id.

"A claim for relief under section 1983 requires a showing of

two elements: first, that the claimant has been deprived of a
No. 95-20319

-2-

right `secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United

States, and second, that the deprivation was conducted `under

color of any statute . . . of any State.'" Frazier v. Board of

Trustees of N.W. Miss. Regional Medical Ctr., 765 F.2d 1278, 1283

(5th Cir. 1985) (quoting Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S.

144, 150 (1970)), amended in other part, 777 F.2d 329 (5th Cir.

1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1142 (1986). Randle's claim

against Superior Products fails because he has failed to show

that he was injured as the result of any state action. His sole

claim is against Superior Products, a company which Randle

described as the "distributor" of the defective product. Randle

has not alleged that Superior is a state actor and therefore he

cannot establish that state action caused his boil to develop,

nor has he alleged any basis for jurisdiction other than § 1983. 

Randle's appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because this appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R.

42.2.