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:

A17A0925. BRIAN C. LAVERENZ v. CELIA A. LAVERENZ.

Brian C. Laverenz and Celia A. Laverenz were divorced in 2006. Celia A.

Laverenz filed a “Second Amended Motion for Contempt,” seeking reimbursement

for unpaid expenses incurred for the benefit of the children. The trial court granted

the motion on February 8, 2016. Brian Laverenz thereafter filed a motion for new

trial, which the trial court denied. He then filed a notice of appeal to this Court on

September 28, 2016.

The Georgia Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over all divorce and

alimony cases, including those cases ancillary to the divorce proceedings in which a

notice of appeal is filed before January 1, 2017. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec.

VI, Par. III (6); Ga. L. 2016, pp. 885-886, 892, §§ 3-1 & 6-1 (c); Morris v. Surges,

284 Ga. 748, 750 (2) (670 SE2d 84) (2008); see also Todd v. Todd, 287 Ga. 250,

251-252 (1) (703 SE2d 597) (2010). In Georgia, when the obligation to pay child

support arises from a prior divorce proceeding, child support is a form of alimony.

See Spurlock v. Dept. of Human Resources, 286 Ga. 512, 513-514 (1) (690 SE2d 378)

(2010); Jones v. Jones, 280 Ga. 712, 715-716 (2) (632 SE2d 121) (2006). Because

Laverenz’s appeal of the order addressing child support falls within the Supreme

Court’sjurisdiction, this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for

resolution. We note that on December 20, 2016, we transferred a related case to the

Georgia Supreme Court, in which Brian Laverenz seeks review of a trial court order

January 17, 2017
denying his motion to modify his child support obligations. See Lavernez v.

Lavernez, Case No. A17A0814 (transferred December 20, 2016).1

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.

1 Please note that the notice of appeal has the parties’ last names spelled two

different ways, and our cases were docketed with the last names spelled differently.

01/17/2017
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4246]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 021595B]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Atlantic 
Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Committee will meet on February 23-24, 
1995 in the Montgomery B Room of the Philadelphia Airport Days Inn, 
4101 Island Avenue, Philadelphia, PA. The meeting will begin at 10:00 
a.m. on Thursday, February 23 and adjourn at approximately 1:00 p.m. on 
Friday, February 24.
    The purpose of this meeting is to review comments made on Amendment 
5 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management 
Plan, including possible qualifying criteria for limited entry into the 
squid and butterfish fisheries and other aspects of the management 
program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Keifer, Executive Director, 
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 S. New Street, Dover, DE 
19904; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting is physically accessible to 
people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or 
other auxiliary aids should be directed to Joanna Davis on (302) 674-
2331, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: February 15, 1995.
David S. Crestin,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-4246 Filed 2-16-95; 10:14 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
### Proposed Provision: E3.14. Eliminate the taxable maximum for the employer payroll tax (6.2 percent) beginning in 2024. For the employee payroll tax (6.2 percent) and for benefit credit purposes, beginning in 2024, increase the taxable maximum by an additional 2 percent per year until taxable earnings equal 90 percent of covered earnings.

back
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Pages 2175-2176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-436]



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


United States Enrichment Corporation Board of Directors

TIME AND DATE: 8:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 10, 1995.

PLACE: USEC Corporate Headquarters, 6903 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20817.

STATUS: The meeting will be closed to the public. [[Page 2176]] 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

<bullet> Review of commercial and financial issues of the 
Corporation
<bullet> Review of personnel rules and practices
<bullet> Procedural matters

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Barbara Arnold, 301-564-3354.
    Dated: January 4, 1995.
William H. Timbers, Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-436 Filed 1-4-95; 2:42 pm]
BILLING CODE 8720-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          38,160
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  600,202
<ALLOWANCES>                                   208,534
<INVENTORY>                                     18,578
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               496,564
<PP&E>                                         321,933
<DEPRECIATION>                                  86,248
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,562,776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          293,263
<BONDS>                                        410,893
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       645,288
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,562,776
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,119,594
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,078,429
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,981
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,098
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,209
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,209
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-8010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

EUGENE E. COOPER, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District 

Judge. (4:00-cr-01033-CWH-2) 

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 31, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Eugene E. Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Eugene E. Cooper appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See United States v. Cooper, No. 4:00-

cr-01033-CWH-2 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2009). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6111

JAMES THOMAS HAYWOOD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA98-1838) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 24, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Thomas Haywood, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Regina Hollins Lewis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s judgment is marked as “filed” on January 20, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on January 21, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we take the date that the judgment was entered on the docket sheet as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: James Thomas Haywood seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Haywood v. Sizer , No. CA98-1838 (D. Md. Jan. 21, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Public Horticulture and Engagement Unit: Washington, DC
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Washington, D.C. National Arboretum Public Horticulture and Engagement Unit





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Programs and Projects at this LocationARS research is organized into National Programs. Within each National Program are research projects. Listed below are  the National Programs and research projects currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a National Program (NP) will take you  to the main ARS site for more information on the program. Clicking on a research  project title will take you to more information on the project.  Current View: All Projects   Show All Projects ||
         Appropriated Projects Only   Plant Genetic Resources, Genomics and Genetic Improvement
                           (NP #301)Establish and Maintain Public Display Gardens for Woody and Herbaceous Landscape Plants
                              (In-House Appropriated)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3568 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration 

from accepting warrants for the arrest of aliens as valid proof of identification at airport security checkpoints, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2022 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Transportation Security 

Administration from accepting warrants for the arrest 

of aliens as valid proof of identification at airport security checkpoints, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prohibiting the Use 

5 of Arrest Warrants for Identification at Security Check6 points Act of 2022’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3568 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST ACCEPTANCE OF U.S. IMMI2 GRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AR3 REST WARRANTS AS IDENTIFICATION AT AIR4 PORT SECURITY CHECKPOINTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of the Trans6 portation Security Administration may not accept a pro7 hibited document as valid proof of identification or as an 

8 acceptable alternate identification at an airport security 

9 checkpoint. 

10 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with 

11 respect to an alien who is being removed from the United 

12 States in accordance with the immigration laws (as such 

13 term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Na14 tional Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)). 

15 (c) PROHIBITED DOCUMENT DEFINED.—In this sec16 tion, the term ‘‘prohibited document’’ means any of the 

17 following: 

18 (1) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforce19 ment Form I–200, Warrant for Arrest of Alien (or 

20 any successor form). 

21 (2) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforce22 ment Form I–205, Warrant of Removal/Deportation 

23 (or any successor form). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of World Energy Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Benjamin C. Croxton, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.  /s/Benjamin C. Croxton BENJAMIN C. CROXTON Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer World Energy Solutions, Inc.  November 6, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 7144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02692]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Bankruptcy Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on 
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure will 
hold a one-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation 
but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be 
posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at: http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/records-and-archives-rules-committees/agenda-books.

DATES: March 31, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Hotel Monaco Denver, 1717 Champa Street, Paris B&C Meeting 
Rooms, Denver, CO 80202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee 
Secretary, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the 
United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: February 4, 2016.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf,
Rules Committee Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02692 Filed 2-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-154-CV

IN RE MICHAEL SUTTON	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.2  Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL  A:  LIVINGSTON, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and HOLMAN, J. 

DELIVERED:  April 24, 2008
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Randy S. Bayne, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of remote knowledge,
inc. (the "Corporation");

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
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 quarterly report;

4. The Corporation's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the Corporation, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
     particularly during the period in which this quarterly reports is being
     prepared;

     b. evaluated the effectiveness of the Corporation's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusion 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 Corporation's internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the Corporation's
     most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
     case of an quarterly report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
     likely to materially affect, the Corporation's internal control over
     financial reporting; and

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

     a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
     affect the Corporation's ability to record, process, summarize and report
     financial data and have identified for the Corporation's auditors any
     material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the Corporation's internal
     controls over financial reporting.

 Date: August 16, 2004

/s/  Randy S. Bayne
-----------------------------
     Randy S. Bayne
     Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3451 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3451

To include certain computer-related projects in the Federal permitting 
    program under title XLI of the FAST Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 10, 2022

  Mr. Hagerty (for himself, Mr. King, and Mr. Portman) introduced the 
following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, 
                               and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To include certain computer-related projects in the Federal permitting 
    program under title XLI of the FAST Act, 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. FEDERAL PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT.

    Section 41001(6)(A) of the FAST Act (42 U.S.C. 4370m(6)(A)) is 
amended, in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting 
``semiconductors, artificial intelligence and machine learning, high-
performance computing and advanced computer hardware and software, 
quantum information science and technology, data storage and data 
management, cybersecurity,'' after ``manufacturing,''.
                                 <all>
```