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:

A25A0156. CEDRIC JONES v. KIARA ROBERTS.

Kiara Roberts filed a petition to holdCedric Jones in contempt for failure to pay

child support. After the trial court found him in contempt, Jones filed this direct

appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

“Appeals from judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and other domestic

relations cases” must be made by filing an application for discretionary review. See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b). Where the issue on appeal is child support, the case is a

domestic relations case within the meaning of the statute. See Booker v. Ga. Dept. of

HumanResources, 317 Ga.App. 426, 427 (731 SE2d 110) (2012) (an action in which the

“underlying subjectmatter is [the]obligationtoprovidechild support”is “a domestic

relations case subject to review only by application”); see also Russo v. Manning, 252

Ga. 155, 155 (312 SE2d 319) (1984) (“A judgment of contempt regarding a domestic

relationsdecree is appealableonlyby applicationfor discretionary appeal.”).Although

OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) permits a direct appeal from an order holding a party in

contempt of certain child custody rulings, the contempt order here was based solely

on failure to pay child support and thus may not be appealed directly. See Voyles v.

Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 47 (799 SE2d 160) (2017) (holding that it is the issue raised on

appeal that determines the proper appellate procedure). 

August 14, 2024
Jones’s failure to follow the discretionary appeal procedure deprives us of

jurisdiction over this direct appeal, 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.

08/14/2024
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

#### 					NEWS				

## New Summits Aim to Strengthen Cybersecurity for State Courts

Funded by State Justice Institute, the National Center for State Courts, in partnership with the COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee and the Center for Internet Security/Multistate Information Sharing and Analysis Center are launching the summits across the country, with the first summit expected later this year. There will be five regional hybrid summits where court leaders will gain a deeper understanding of cybersecurity and technical disaster recovery resources and tools. The purpose of the summits is to prepare state courts to better prevent, respond to, and recover from cybersecurity events. 

The project was recently highlighted in a Government Technology Magazine article: https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/new-summits-aim-to-strengthen-cybersecurity-for-u-s-courts

### 

                    - GovTech-SJI-featured-article  (956 kB)

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Trauma-Informed Practices for Criminal Courts: Implementation Opportunities  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Visits The National Judicial College  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Second Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Visits The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges  Read More**   

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
<PAGE>





                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    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

In connection with the Annual Report of TLC Vision Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, B.
Charles Bono, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Company.

Date:  November 17, 2003

/s/ B. Charles Bono III
------------------------------------
B. Charles Bono III
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.2**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of the report of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP (whose name has been changed to McGladrey LLP effective May 1, 2012) dated July 14, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements of AdvanSource Biomaterials Corporation as of and for the year ended March 31, 2011, included in this Form 10-K, into the Company’s previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-149341, 333-149342, 333-149343, 333-117594, 333-106607 and 333-05893), Form SB-2 (File No. 333-122123), Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-110779 and 333-72223), and Form S-4 (File No. 333-102115).

/s/ McGladrey LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

July 11, 2012
Exhibit 32.2

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, John A. Schissel, hereby certify, to
the best of my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 of BRE Properties, Inc., as amended (the Form 10-K), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of BRE Properties, Inc.



|                         |  |  |  |                          
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------
|Dated: February 20, 2013 |  |  |  | /s/ John A. Schissel     
|                         |  |  |  | John A. Schissel         
|                         |  |  |  | Executive Vice President,
|                         |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Yahoo! Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31,
2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Marissa A. Mayer, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ken Goldman, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of her or his knowledge, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                
|--------------------------------
|                                
|/s/ MARISSA A. MAYER            
|Name: Marissa A. Mayer          
|Title:   Chief Executive Officer
|Dated: September 24, 2015       

|                                
|--------------------------------
|                                
|/s/ KEN GOLDMAN                 
|Name: Ken Goldman               
|Title:   Chief Financial Officer
|Dated: September 24, 2015       

The foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Helene Degen, Deceased. Joachim Frederick Rothgart, Appellant; Hugh McNeile, Respondent

*Contested probate of will*— *use of a certificate made by physicians previous to the execution of the will*— *what will warrant the reversal of the decree.*

In a contest over tlie probate of a will it is not prejudicial to the contestant to permit doctors, who examined the testator long previous to the making of the will, to look at a certificate they had made, they having testified to their present recollection.

To warrant a reversal upon an appeal from, a decree admitting a will to probate after a contest, the error alleged must appear to have prejudiced the appellant.

Appeal by Joachim Frederick Rotligart, one of the heirs and next of kin of Helene Degen, deceased, from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of Kings, entered in said Surrogate’s Court on the 24th day of February, 1892, admitting the will of Helene Degen to probate.

*Charles J.*Patterson, for the contestant, appellant.

*Bernard J. Bouras*and *Henry Thompson,*for the proponent, respondent.

Pratt, J.:

This is an appeal from a decree of the surrogate of Kings county admitting to probate the will of Helene Degen, deceased, etc.

An examination of the evidence satisfies us that the conclusions o£ fact found by the surrogate are fully sustained by the evidence, and that the will was properly admitted to probate.

It is true there was some conflict in the testimony, yet a clear preponderance seems to be in favor of the proponent; besides, the surrogate had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing them testify, and was thus better able to judge of the credibility of witnesses than an appellate court. Neither do we discover any error in the rulings of the surrogate upon the trial. There was no merit in the point that the witnesses did not subscribe the will in the presence of the testatrix. *(Matter of Will of Phillips,*98 N. Y. 267.)

*144It was not prejudicial to the contestant to permit the doctors, who examined the testatrix long previous to the making of the will, to wit, August 20, 1890, to look at the certificate they had made, as they testified to their present recollection. The rule is that in appeals of this kind the error must appear to have prejudiced the appellant to warrant a reversal. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2545; *Matter of Smith,*95 N. Y. 516.)

I do not think this case can be properly classed as doubtful.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Brown, P. J., and Dykman, J., concurred.

Decree of surrogate affirmed, with costs.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2647

To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their parts, for use

in the manufacture of digital versatile discs (DVDs).

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25, 2000

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

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their

parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile

discs (DVDs).

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:
2

•S 2647 IS

‘‘ 9902.84.01 Machines or mechanical appliances, whether

imported separately or as an

entirety, and

parts thereof, for

use in the manufacture of digital

versatile discs

(DVDs) (provided for in subheading

8456.99.90) ....... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/03 ’’.

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the

4 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
13

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1984    Filed: 05/13/19    Entered: 05/13/19 11:35:01    Page 1 of1
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1809 Filed: 05/02/19 Entered: 05/02/19 12:04:54 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1809 Filed: 05/02/19 Entered: 05/02/19 12:04:54 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1809 Filed: 05/02/19 Entered: 05/02/19 12:04:54 Page 3 of

3
#### George Henderson, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Samuel A. Greer, *et al.,*defendants in error.

New trial. Before Judge Harrell. Terrell Superior Superior Court. November Term, 1870.

This case was returned to the July Term, 1871, of the Supreme Court. When called, the death of Samuel A. Greer was suggested, and the following order passed.

“ The death of Samuel A. Greer, one of the defendants in error, having been suggested of record, and it appearing to *567the Court that there is no representation of his estate, and that the said Greer died since the filing of the bill of exceptions in said case : It is ordered that the plaintiff in error be allowed, at the next Term of the Court, to open the record and proceed to a trial of said case, and that this order be published sixty days before the next Term, as prescribed by the rules of this Court.”

At the January Term, 1872, said cause was again continued for want of parties, At the July Term, 1872, defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that there had been no service of the aforesaid order, either by publication or personally, under the 26th rule of Court.

The writ of error was dismissed.

A. Hood; H. Morgan, for the motion.

Wright *&*Warren; C. B. Wooten; W. A. Hawkins, contra.
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 12.01

                CRESCENT REAL ESTATE EQUITIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                             (dollars in thousands)






<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                                  Year ended
                                                                               December 31, 2003
                                                                              -----------------
<S>                                                                           <C>
Loss from continuing operations before minority interests and income tax           $ 72,025
Distributions received in excess of earnings from unconsolidated companies            1,225
Interest Expense                                                                    172,116
Portion of rent expense representative of interest                                      882
Amortization of Deferred Financing Costs                                             10,925
                                                                                   --------
Earnings                                                                           $257,173
                                                                                   ========
Interest Expense                                                                   $172,116
Capitalized Interest                                                                 18,233
Amortization of Deferred Financing Costs                                             10,925
GMAC Preferred Dividend                                                                  --
Portion of rent expense representative of interest                                      882
                                                                                   --------
Fixed Charges                                                                      $202,156
                                                                                   ========
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                                     1.27
                                                                                   ========
</Table>
No. 1,573.

#### STATE ex rel. ST. PETERS, Relator, v. DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, and JOHN LINDSAY, Judge Thereof, Respondents.

*Original*— (Jeriiorari.

Decided May 2, 1903.

*Mr. J. N.*Kirie, for Relator.

Per Curiam.

Upon tbe motion of counsel for relator this cause is hereby dismissed.
#### THE PEOPLE ex rel. WILLIAM DARGIN, Appellant, *v.*DAYTON T. COX, Police Justice of the Village of Port Jervis, Respondent.

*Oluvp.*370 0/1873 — *Police justice of Port Jervis —Mai by jury.*

Section 40 of chapter 370 of 1873, authorizing the police justice of the village of Port Jervis to hear and determine all cases arising under the charter, by-laws and ordinances of said village, was not' intended to require the justice to try-such cases alone, but where a jury is proper the persons brought before him are entitled to a trial by jury.

*147Weit of certiorari to review the proceedings and judgment had before the police justice of the village of Port Jervis, in the case of the village of Port Jervis against the relator, William Dargin.

*Allerton &*Mills, for the appellant.

*John W.*Lyon, for the respondent.

BaeNAed, P. J.:

The legislature inserted in the charter of the village of Port Jervis the following section :

> “ Section 40. The police justice shall, in said village, possess all the jurisdiction, powers and authority, be subject to the same requirements, duties and liabilities, within said village, in all respects, as are or may be by law vested in or required of the justices of the peace in the town of Deerpark, and he shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all cases arising under the charter, by-laws or ordinances of said village. But in case of the temporary absence or inability of said police justice to perform the duties of that office, the same may be performed by a justice of the peace of the town of Deerpark.”

The trustees of the village were empowered to pass ordinances on certain subjects, and among others, as to drinking-houses, on Sunday. The trustees executed this power by passing an ordinance that all drinking-saloons and places where spirituous liquors were sold should be closed on Sunday, under a penalty of twenty-five dollars for a violation of the ordinance.

A civil action was brought by the village of Port Jervis against the relator, before the police justice. Issue was joined between the parties, and before the commencement of the trial the defendant in that action demanded a jury to try the same. This was refused by the justice, upon the ground that under section 40 of chapter 370 of Laws of 1873, above cited and set forth, the justice was alone empowered to try the issue.

I see no basis for this ruling under that section; the police justice by it is clothed only with the power of a justice of the peace within the village. He is made competent to try cases arising under the charter and by-laws of the village whose officer he is. *148This was upon the condition of his giving the citizen his legal rights during the trial.

It was the right of the defendant (the present relator) to have a jury, and a denial of that right was error, requiring the reversal of the judgment.

Present — LeaeNed, P. J., and DyKMAN, J. Peatt, J., not sitting.

Judgment reversed, without costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
chief executive officer of MacroChem Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)   the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
     30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Form
     10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)   the information contained in the Company's Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
     all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.

                                    /s/  Robert J. DeLuccia
                                    ------------------------------------
                                    Robert J. DeLuccia
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  November 8, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to MacroChem Corporation and will be retained by MacroChem Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


                                       27
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT A-1

#L888693

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1640-1 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 09:01:34 Page 1

of 5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1640-1 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 09:01:34 Page 2

of 5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1640-1 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 09:01:34 Page 3

of 5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1640-1 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 09:01:34 Page 4

of 5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1640-1 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 09:01:34 Page 5

of 5
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF FOOTSTAR, INC.

The registrant is the direct parent corporation of Footstar Center, Inc., a
California corporation, which owns all of the outstanding shares of Footstar
Corporation, a Texas corporation, which owns all of the outstanding membership
interests of Footstar HQ, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company. Footstar
Corporation operates the leased footwear departments in Kmart stores located in
the United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam and the leased
footwear departments in the United States West Coast Rite Aid drug stores.

All of the subsidiaries referred to herein are included in the Consolidated
Financial Statements of the registrant.

The names of other subsidiaries are omitted as, considered in the aggregate as a
single subsidiary, they would not constitute a significant subsidiary.