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:

A18I0137. KEENAN R. COLZIE v. THE STATE.

Keenan R. Colzie was charged with cruelty to children in the first degree,

reckless conduct, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He filed a motion

to sever the firearm charge and bifurcate the trial. The trial court denied the motion on

November 22, 2017. The court certified its order for immediate review on January 3,

2018. The court entered an amended certificate of immediate review on February 9.

Colzie filed the instant application for interlocutory review on February 23. The State

has moved to dismiss the application.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), a party may request interlocutory review only if the

trial court certifies within ten days of entry of the order at issue that immediate review

should be had. If the certificate of immediate review is not entered within that ten- day

period, it is untimely, and the party seeking review must wait until the final judgment

to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Wilcher v. Confederate Packaging, Inc., 287 Ga.

App. 451, 452 (1) (651 SE2d 790) (2007). Here, the trial court entered its certificate

of immediate review 42 days after entry of the order Colzie seeks to appeal. Although

the court entered an amended certificate of immediate review, there is no indication in

the application materials that the court reentered its order denying Colzie’s motion to

sever in order to restart the ten-day window to obtain a timely certificate.

Nonetheless, even if Colzie had obtained a timely certificate of immediate

review, his application would still be untimely. OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) mandates the filing

of the interlocutory application within ten days after entry of the certificate of

immediate review. Ordinarily, Colzie would have had until Monday February 19, 2018

March 13, 2018
to file a timely application from the entry of the amended certificate of immediate

review. However, February 19 was Presidents’ Day, a national holiday. See Court of

Appeals Rule 3 (when a filing deadline falls on a national holiday, the time is extended

to the next business day). Thus, Colzie had until Tuesday, February 20 to file a timely

application. Colzie did not file his interlocutory application until February 23, 2018, 14

days after the entry of the amended certificate.

For the foregoing reasons, the State’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this

application is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e ,

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.

03/13/2018
[No. 18425-1-III.

Division Three.

May 16, 2000.]

#### Gordon Guenzler, et al., *Appellants,*v. Anthem Life Insurance Company, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 95-2-07097-8, Linda G. Tompkins, J., entered April 5, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, J., concurred in by Kurtz, C.J., and Sweeney, J.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Exceed Resources, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 61652

)

Under Contract No. NNJ15RA22B )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Celsius Rebello

Director Government Services

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott W. Barber, Esq.

NASA Chief Trial Attorney

Warnecke Miller, Esq.

Vincent A. Salgado, Esq.

Trial Attorneys

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On June 12, 2020, the Board granted respondent summary judgment with

respect to appellant’s claim for $2,490,251 in lost profit s on the above referenced

contract. On November 2, 2020, the Board denied appellant’s motion for

reconsideration. Those decisio ns are the Board’s final determination on the lost profits

issue.

In a motion filed on February 5, 2021, appellant notified the Board that it

wished to withdraw the claims that remained pending after the Board’s decisions on

the motions referenced above . Appellant has further explained this request in

subsequent emails to the Board, including those on February 11 and 17, 2021. In

summary, appellant states that five claims remain pending before the Board and it

wishes to withdraw all five. The Board gr ants this request.

Accordingly, nothing remains for the Board to adjudicate and the appeal is

dismissed from the Board’s docket with prejudice.

Dated: February 22 , 2021

MICHAEL N. O ’ CONNELL

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals2 I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the

Armed Services Board of Contrac t Appeals in ASBCA No. 61652

, Appeal of Exceed

Resources, Inc. , rendered in conform ance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: February 23, 2021

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                    161
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                           1,048
<ALLOWANCES>                                8
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          199
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         10,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     360
<BONDS>                                   132
<COMMON>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                              9,525
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           10,017
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           49
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (168)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (168)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                             (168)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (5.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (5.77)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 40 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 40

   To restore Americans' individual liberty by striking the Federal 
                     mandate to purchase insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 22 (legislative day, January 3), 2013

  Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Coburn, Mr. 
Isakson, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Portman, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Burr, Mrs. Fischer, 
  Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Risch, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. 
  Coats, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Roberts) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To restore Americans' individual liberty by striking the Federal 
                     mandate to purchase insurance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Liberty Restoration Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTORING INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

    Sections 1501 and 1502 and subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of 
section 10106 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and 
the amendments made by such sections and subsections) are repealed and 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and administered as 
if such provisions and amendments had never been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1045]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       TRIBUTE TO PETER CLENDENIN

                                 ______

                       HON. THOMAS J. BLILEY, JR.

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 16, 1995
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and pay tribute to a 
good friend and servant to the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
Mr. Peter Clendenin. On June 30 of this year, Peter will end more than 
12 years of service as president of the Virginia Health Care 
Association, a nonprofit association that represents assisted living, 
nursing facility, and subacute care providers throughout the State of 
Virginia.
  For the 3 years preceding his tenure at the Virginia Health Care 
Association, Peter served the Commonwealth as assistant secretary of 
human resources where he oversaw the development of the budgets for 15 
State agencies responsible for implementing security, manpower 
development, mental health services, and rehabilitation services for 
the people of Virginia.
  Peter began his service to the Commonwealth in 1975 as a senior 
legislative analyst with the Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and 
Review Commission where he worked for 4 years as project director of 
program evaluations.
  Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to share with my colleagues 
the many contributions Peter Clendenin has made to the people and 
government of Virginia, and to wish him well on his future endeavors.

                          ____________________
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1488

DWAIN FOLTZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FAIRFAX COUNTY,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00939-LMB-IDD)

Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: November 8, 2018

Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ellen Kyriacou Renaud, SWICK & SHAPIRO PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. 

Kimberly Baucom, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Karen L. Gibbons, Deputy County 
2

Attorney, Elizabeth Teare, County Attorney, Robert M. Hardy, Assistant County 

Attorney, Adam Yost, Assistant County Attorney, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY 

ATTORNEY, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Dwain Foltz appeals the district court’s order granting Fairfax County summary 

judgment on his disability discrimination claim, brought pursuant to the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 to 12213 (West 2013 & Supp. 2018). We have 

reviewed the record and considered the parties’ arguments and find no reversible error. 

We first hold that Foltz did not establish a prima facie case of disability 

discrimination as required by the burden-shifting paradigm set forth in McDonnell 

Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). We also hold that, even if Foltz did 

establish his prima facie case, no reasonable jury would conclude that Foltz would not 

have been separated from the County “but for” his disability. See Gentry v. E. W. 

Partners Club Mgmt. Co. Inc., 816 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 2016) (holding that a “but-for” 

causation standard applies in ADA context); see also United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 

326, 328 (4th Cir.) (recognizing that this court may affirm the district court’s judgment 

“on any grounds apparent from the record” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. 

denied, 138 S. Ct. 273 (2017). 

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. NICHOLAS F. MITAROTONDA.

Dec. 10, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
#### AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY v. GILCHRIST BROTHERS, INC.

Feb. 11, 1980.

Petition for certification granted.
[Nos. 44281-3-I; 44133-7-I.

Division One.

April 24, 2000.]

#### *In the Matter of the Dependency of*A.S. The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Aziz Safouane, et al., *Appellants. In the Matter of the Welfare of*A.S. The Department of Social and Health Services, *Appellant,*v. Sarah Safouane, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 97-7-02877-7, LeRoy McCullough and Dale B. Ramerman, JJ., entered December 11, 1997 and January 20, 1999. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished opinion per Baker, J., concurred in by Kennedy and Ellington, JJ. Now published in part at 101 Wn. App. 60.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2868 

To establish a statute of limitations for certain actions of the Securities 

and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. MARKEY, Mrs. SHAHEEN, and Ms. 

WARREN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To establish a statute of limitations for certain actions of 

the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMISSION 

4 ACTIONS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 21 of the Securities Ex6 change Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u) is amended by adding 

7 at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(j) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.— 

9 ‘‘(1) CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES.— 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2868 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—An action or pro2 ceeding brought or instituted by the Commis3 sion under any provision of the securities laws 

4 for a civil monetary penalty may be brought not 

5 later than 10 years after the violation. 

6 ‘‘(B) EXCLUSION.—The period of limita7 tions in subparagraph (A) does not run during 

8 any time when an alleged violator is absent 

9 from the United States or has no reasonably as10 certainable place of abode or work within the 

11 United States. 

12 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this sub13 section, the term ‘civil monetary penalty’ means re14 lief sought by the Commission under— 

15 ‘‘(A) section 20(d) of the Securities Act of 

16 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77t(d)); 

17 ‘‘(B) section 21(d)(3), 21A(a), subsections 

18 (a) through (d) of section 21B, section 32(b), 

19 32(c)(1)(B), or 32(c)(2)(B) of this title (15 

20 U.S.C. 78u(d)(3), 15 U.S.C. 78u–1(a), 15 

21 U.S.C. 78u–2(a)-(d), 15 U.S.C. 78ff(b), 15 

22 U.S.C. 78ff(c)(1)(B), 15 U.S.C. 78ff(c)(2)(B)); 

23 ‘‘(C) section 9(d) or 42(e) of the Invest24 ment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a– 

25 9(d), 15 U.S.C. 80a–41(e)); or 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2868 IS

1 ‘‘(D) section 203(i) or 209(e) of the In2 vestment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b– 

3 3(i), 15 U.S.C. 80b–9(e)).’’. 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 21A(d) of 

5 the Securities Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u–1(d)) is 

6 amended by striking paragraph (5). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
News United States Air Force
 Air Force simplifies promotion recommendation forms for officersPublished May 8, 2019
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS)  --**
                The Air Force announced today it will make adjustments to the way the Air Force Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form, will be filled out and used for Total Force officer promotion boards beginning in September 2019.
The new policy will reduce the promotion recommendation narrative from nine lines to two and provide guidance for stratification and comments.
“Centralized boards have the critical task of selecting the next generation of leaders,” said Shon Manasco, assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower and reserve affairs. “To assist in that effort, senior raters need a simple and effective mechanism to communicate their observations about an officer’s potential. These enhancements to the PRF and new stratification guidance allow us to better achieve that goal.”
Endorsements for promotion are based upon an officer’s demonstrated character and competence as detailed in the secretary of the Air Force’s Memorandum of Instruction for promotion boards. Comments or recommendations for items that are decided through other processes (e.g. developmental education, jobs, assignments, etc.), will no longer be authorized on the PRF.
“This is about building the officer bench we need to fight and win as we accomplish our missions in support of the National Defense Strategy. Over time the PRF has become a summary of an officer’s record with significant focus on style and format,” said Lt. Gen. Brian Kelly, deputy chief of staff for manpower, personnel and services. “This adjustment restores the PRF to its original intent of providing a way for senior raters to communicate an officer’s potential to serve in the next higher grade directly with promotion boards and is another key step in our officer talent management transformation.”
Additionally, senior raters will follow new guidance regarding stratification on the PRF. The guidance allows the promotion board to receive pertinent information that directly speaks to an officer’s promotion potential.
For more information, log into **MyPers** or contact the Air Force Personnel Center.AFWN 



promotion 



recommendation 



forms 



simplify 



SAF 



SecAF 



Promotion Recommendation Form 



total force 



officer 



board 



AF 



Air Force 



Secretary of the Air Force 



manpower 



PRF 



Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson 



Heather Wilson
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6306]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                  VOTE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the Coverdell-Dole amendment, No. 690, to H.R. 956, the 
product liability bill, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 156 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--38

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Murray
     Packwood
     Reid
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Warner
     Moynihan
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any Senators who wish 
to change their vote? If there are no other Senators desiring to vote, 
on this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 38. Three-fifths of the 
Senators duly chosen and sworn, having voted in the affirmative, the 
motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4901-H4902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                           MEDICARE INCREASES

  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, as we go home for Mother's Day, I think 
all of us know that mothers have that extrasensory perception about 
when people are fudging. Well, let me tell you, there is going to be a 
lot of fudging going on here about this budget. You are going to hear 
it's traditional family values.
  But let me ask a question? Do you know any family in America that 
when they pull up to the table to put their 
[[Page H4902]] budget together says let us push the children away and 
let us push the elderly away, the most vulnerable in the family, so 
those who are doing real well can get a larger piece of the pie? I do 
not know any family like that. That is the traditional mogul budget.
  So we have really turned it on its head and turned traditional family 
values into traditional mogul values. And if you are really wondering 
what to get your mother this year for Mother's Day, they have now 
answered the question. Send her a check, send her cash. She is going to 
need at least $900 to $1,000 a year because there is going to be an 
increase in premiums and an increase in all things that affect her 
Medicare.
  Not a good Mother's Day present.
  

                          ____________________
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Digital AngelCorporation (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2003 (the “PeriodicReport”), I, James P. Santelli, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.       ThePeriodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.       Theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  November 14, 2003 | /s/ JAMES P.  SANTELLI     |   |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------|--------|
|                           | James P.  Santelli         |   |
|                           | Chief  Financial Officer   |   |
|                           | Digital  Angel Corporation |   |

 

----