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:

A24A0117. STACIE ELIZABETH LEIPOLD v. THE STATE.

In 2017, Stacie Elizabeth Leipold entered Alford

1

pleas to several counts,

including four counts of violation of the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act,

and the trial court sentenced her to 25 years, with 12 to serve. In 2022, Leipold filed

an “out-of-time motion to reduce/modify sentence” asking the trial court to reduce her

sentence. The trial court denied the motion, and Leipold filed this appeal. We,

however, lack jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a court may modify a sentence during the year

after its imposition or within 120 days after remittitur following a direct appeal,

whichever is later. Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 348 (691 SE2d 247) (2010).

Once, as here, this statutory period expires, a trial court may only modify a sentence

if it is void. Id. Although a direct appeal may lie from an order denying or dismissing

a motion to vacate a void sentence, such an appeal is authorized only where the

defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void. See Harper v.

State, 286 Ga. 216, 217 n.1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118,

119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). A sentence is void only if it imposes punishment that the

law does not allow. Crumbley v. State, 261 Ga. 610, 611 (1) (409 SE2d 517) (1991).

“Motions to vacate a void sentence generally are limited to claims that – even

assuming the existence and validity of the conviction for which the sentence was

imposed – the law does not authorize thatsentence, most typically because it exceeds

the most severe punishment for which the applicable penal statute provides.” von

1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25 (91 SCt 160, 27 LE2d 162) (1970). 

December 18, 2023
Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). 

Here, Leipold does not allege that her sentence exceeded the maximum

punishment the law allows. Rather, she requests that the trial court reconsider the

sentence and enter a more lenient sentence. Because Leipold has not raised a valid

void-sentence claim, the appeal 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.

12/18/2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM CARRAMERICA
REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES  CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF
JUNE 30, 1996 AND FROM CARRAMERICA REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                      21,656
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,921
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0 <F1>
<INVENTORY>                                      0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0  
<PP&E>                                     838,299  
<DEPRECIATION>                             105,726  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             838,667  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0  
<BONDS>                                    452,993  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0  
<PREFERRED>                                      0  
<COMMON>                                       252  
<OTHER-SE>                                 336,384  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               838,667  
<SALES>                                          0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            63,764  
<CGS>                                            0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               54,163   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,678   
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,678   
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                484   
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,592    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .43      
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .45      
<FN>
<F1> Notes & accounts  receivable  are  presented  net of allowance for doubtful
     accounts as the allowance is immaterial.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of CarrAmerica
Realty Corporation (the Company), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Thomas A. CarrThomas A. CarrChief Executive OfficerMay 2, 2006/s/ Stephen E. RiffeeStephen E. RiffeeChief Financial OfficerMay 2, 2006
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

February 27, 2024 

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Maryland 

Space Business Roundtable (MSBR) Lunch on March 19, 2024 

On March 19, 2024, the Maryland Space Business Roundtable (MSBR), a nonprofit 

organization under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host a lunch at the Martin’s 

Crosswinds in Greenbelt, MD, starting at 11:30 a.m. The guest speaker is Senator Chris 

Van Hollen. 

Approximately 250 people have been invited to attend. Attendees will have a diversity of 

views or interests and will include representatives from the legislative branch, state and local 

government officials, representatives from industry, employees of Federal agencies, 

academia, media and members of the public. The estimated cost of the event, including all 

food and beverages, is $44 per person. MSBR is in control of the organizing, planning and 

invitations for this event. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to exchange 

information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the requirements 

of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2). 

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and 

views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees, including 

NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under 

Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests 

of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In those 

circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the 

individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their 

duties. 

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the 

interests of the MSBR, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating or 

administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination from their local 

ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation. 

Adam F. Greenstone
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Certification Required by Rule13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

I, Daniel J.Rothaupt, certify that:

 

1. I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of AES Eastern Energy, L.P.(the“registrant”);

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b) [Paragraphomitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

 

c) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisannual report based on such evaluation; and

 

d) Disclosedin this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):

 

a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

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

 

Date: March16, 2004

 
|   | /s/Daniel J. Rothaupt                                        |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Daniel J. Rothaupt  President  (principal executive officer) |   |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: DEMAS WAI YAN, Esquire, 

Debtor.

______________________________ 

CRYSTAL LEI, 

Appellant, 

 v. 

DEMAS WAI YAN, Esquire; CHEUK TIN 

YAN, 

Appellees.

No. 15-60019 

BAP No. 14-1266 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Jury, Taylor, and Pappas, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted November 15, 2017**

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Crystal Lei appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-60019 

Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Lei’s motion to 

sanction chapter 7 debtor Demas Wai Yan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of 

review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New 

Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not err by denying Lei’s request for attorney’s fees 

incurred while defending against Yan’s state court actions asserting pre-petition 

claims because Lei lacks standing to challenge violations of the automatic stay. 

See Tilley v. Vucurevich (In re Pecan Groves of Ariz.), 951 F.2d 242, 245 (9th Cir. 

1991) (the debtor and trustee are the only legal beneficiaries of the automatic stay); 

cf. Magnoni v. Globe Inv. & Loan Co. (In re Globe Inv. & Loan Co.), 867 F.2d 

556, 560 (9th Cir. 1989) (recognizing that parties with interests adverse to the 

bankruptcy estate do not have standing to enforce the automatic stay).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise its 

inherent authority to sanction Yan based on his misconduct before another court. 

See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55 (1991) (setting forth standard of 

review).

The BAP properly concluded that bankruptcy courts lack authority to award 

sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 because bankruptcy courts are not “court[s] of 

the United States” as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451. See Perroton v. Gray (In re 
3 15-60019 

Perroton), 958 F.2d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Lei’s request seeking relief from this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, set forth 

in her opening brief, is denied.

Lei’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 15) is also denied.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry A. Goldstone, President and Chief Operating 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 results of operations
of the Company.





|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    LARRY A. GOLDSTONE            
|Larry A. Goldstone                   
|President and Chief Operating Officer
|                                     
|August 8, 2005
Blue Origin Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev2) Space Act Agreement

NNK11MS02S

Blue Origin Space Act Agreement

Blue Origin SAA Amendment 01 

Blue Origin SAA Amendment 02 

Blue Origin SAA Amendment 03 

Blue Origin SAA Amendment 04
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2115 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2115

 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
  the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 
                         State of South Dakota.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 25, 2004

  Mr. Daschle (for himself and Mr. Johnson) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
  the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 
                         State of South Dakota.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE COST 
              ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN SOUTH DAKOTA.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860C-1(b) of the Social Security Act, as 
added by section 241 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 
and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) No cca areas within south dakota.--A CCA area shall 
        not include an MSA any portion of which is within the State of 
        South Dakota.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of the Medicare Prescription 
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2117 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2117

 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
  the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 
                          State of New Jersey.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 25, 2004

 Mr. Corzine (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
  the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 
                          State of New Jersey.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE COST 
              ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN NEW JERSEY.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860C-1(b) of the Social Security Act, as 
added by section 241 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 
and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) No cca areas within new jersey.--A CCA area shall not 
        include an MSA any portion of which is within the State of New 
        Jersey.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of the Medicare Prescription 
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              162,434
<SECURITIES>                                         21,192
<RECEIVABLES>                                       212,394
<ALLOWANCES>                                          9,062
<INVENTORY>                                         101,481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    546,377
<PP&E>                                               28,864
<DEPRECIATION>                                       53,976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      626,132
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               272,356
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                346
<OTHER-SE>                                          353,430
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        626,132
<SALES>                                           1,073,193
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,073,193
<CGS>                                               900,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       900,602
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    156,025
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      282
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      20,287
<INCOME-TAX>                                         15,565
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   4,722
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          4,722
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.14
        


</TABLE>