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:

A19D0351. AMMON RA SUMRALL v. TODDRICK HUNTER et al.

On July 26, 2018, the trial court denied prison inmate Ammon Ra Sumrall’s

request to file a civil complaint against defendants Toddrick Hunter and Johnny R.

Hunter, finding that his pleading, on its face, showed a complete absence of any

justiciable issue of law or fact. See OCGA § 9-15-2 (d). Sumrall then filed

“Plaintiff’s Response to the Court’s Order that Denied Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed

in Forma Pauperis.” The trial court denied the response on January 14, 2019 and, on

February 14, 2019, Sumrall filed this application for discretionary review. We,

however, lack jurisdiction.

To be timely, a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d); Hill v. State, 204 Ga. App. 582, 582

(420 SE2d 393) (1992). This statutory deadline is jurisdictional, and we cannot

accept an application for appeal not made in compliance with OCGA § 5-6-34 (d).

Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Here, Sumrall filed his

application 31 days after entry of the order he seeks to appeal. Sumrall attempted to

file his application earlier, but it was returned because he did not have a proper

certificate of service in compliance with Court of Appeals Rule 6. Sumrall has filed

a motion to change the filing date back to the date of the original filing. However,

this Court can only accept an application once it is in compliance with our rules and

that is the filing date. Accordingly, Sumrall’s motion to change the filing date is

hereby DENIED.

March 05, 2019
Moreover, although Sumrall called his filing a response, his filing was in

substance one for reconsideration. See Masters v. Clark, 269 Ga. App. 537, 538 (604

SE2d 556) (2004) (“[T]here is no magic in the nomenclature used. Under our rules,

pleadings are judged by their function and not the name used.”) (citation and

punctuation omitted). An order denying a motion for reconsideration is not

appealable in its own right. See Bell v. Cohran, 244 Ga. App. 510, 511 (536 SE2d

187) (2000). Moreover, a motion for reconsideration does not extend the time for

filing an appeal from the underlying order. See Cheeley- Towns v. Rapid Group, Inc.,

212 Ga. App. 183, 183 (1) (441 SE2d 452) (1994); Harris v. State, 278 Ga. 280, 282

n.3 (600 SE2d 592) (2004) (“[A] motion to reconsider does not toll the time for filing

an application to appeal.”). Thus, this application is untimely as to both the denial

of his request to file a civil complaint and the order denying reconsideration and also

invalid as to the order denying reconsideration. 

For these reasons, the application 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.

03/05/2019
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 23.2

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


         We consent to the reference to our firm in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8) pertaining to Regal Cinemas, Inc. Participant Stock Option Plan,
Regal Cinemas, Inc. Employee Stock Option Plan, 1993 Employee Stock Incentive
Plan and the 1998 Stock Purchase and Option Plan for Key Employees of Regal
Cinemas, Inc. and to the incorporation by reference therein of our reports dated
July 2, 1997 (with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Cobb
Theatres, L.L.C. for the year ended December 31, 1996) and October 23, 1996
(with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Cobb Theatres, L.L.C.
for the years ended August 31, 1996 and 1995) included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended January 1, 1998, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Birmingham, Alabama
May 14, 1998
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-64821, 333-109867, 333­115354, 333-115355 and 333-128492 on Form S-3 and Nos. 333-133596, 333-40560 and 333-101390 on Form S-8 of The Midland Company and subsidiaries of our reports dated March 7, 2007 relating to the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedules of The Midland Company and subsidiaries (which includes an explanatory paragraph related to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, Employers Accounting for Defined
Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Benefit Plans  an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R),on December 31, 2006) and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004),
Share-Based Payment, on January 1, 2005 and managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Midland Company and subsidiaries for the year
ended December 31, 2006.



|                         
|-------------------------
|                         
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
|                         
|Cincinnati, Ohio         

March 7, 2007
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER and PRINCIPAL
       FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
          OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Everest Fund, L.P.
(the "Partnership"), for the quarter ended March 31, 2011,
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Lamoureux, President
of Everest Asset Management, Inc., the general partner of
the Everest Fund, L.P. (the "Fund"), hereby 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 Fund.




      By:  /s/ Peter Lamoureux
         ----------------------
      Name: 	Peter Lamoureux
      Title: 	Director, President and
      		Treasurer

     May 16, 2011


		E-3
Reducing Erosion: Using a rapid 

deployable testing solution to 

reduce time between sampling 

and action

Jordan J. Schmidt, PhD

Director, Product Applications

© 2021 LuminUltra Technologies Ltd.

1

PPT Template- April 6, 2021
© 2021 LuminUltra Technologies Ltd.

2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

11/5/2020 11/25/2020 12/15/2020 1/4/2021

Clinical Cases

Viral copies/mL

Date

Wastewater

Clinical
© 2021 LuminUltra Technologies Ltd.

3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

11/5/2020 11/25/2020 12/15/2020 1/4/2021

Clinical Cases

Viral copies/mL

Date

7 day lead time 

between wastewater 

and clinical

Wastewater

Clinical
© 2021 LuminUltra Technologies Ltd.

4

Days

Sample 

Collection

Transport 

(variable based 

on location)

Analysis

(Standard 

SLA: 48 hours)

Time to Act: 2 days
© 2021 LuminUltra Technologies Ltd.

5

GeneCount SARS-CoV-2 

Wastewater Test Kit

1 mL Direct Extraction 

and Purification using 

Magnetic Beads

qPCR using a 

field ready kit
© 2021 LuminUltra Technologies Ltd.

6

Days

Sample 

Collection

Transport 

(variable based 

on location)

Analysis

(Standard 

SLA: 48 hours)

Time to Act: 2 days

Sample 

Collection +

Analysis

Time to Act: 6+ days
• Ensure there are allowances for non-traditional testing 

environments

• Account for various sample matrices including black water

• Consistency in planktonic/aqueous vs solid bound viral particles for 

reference samples

• Consider recovery consistency equally with sensitivity

• Balance useability with comprehensiveness

© 2021 LuminUltra Technologies Ltd.

7

Recommendations for Standards
• Ensure there are allowances for non-traditional testing 

environments

• Account for various sample matrices including black water

• Consistency in planktonic/aqueous vs solid bound viral particles for 

reference samples

• Consider recovery consistency equally with sensitivity

• Balance useability with comprehensiveness

© 2021 LuminUltra Technologies Ltd.

8

Recommendations for Standards

THANKS!
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1679

___________________________

Luis A. Munoz Elizarraraz

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Jefferson B. Sessions, III,1

 Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: May 30, 2017

Filed: June 2, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

1

Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of

the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 43(c).
Mexican citizen Luis A. Munoz Elizarraraz petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s decision to deny

his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against

Torture.2

 Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court, after careful

consideration, concludes that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief. The

petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

2

Munoz Elizarraraz does not challenge the denial of asylum.

-2-
10986.

#### Garmon *v.*The State.

Luke, J.

1. “Since the law does not give to the accused in a criminal ease any right to make a second statement to the court and jury, a refusal to allow such privilege is not cause for a new trial, even where *587the State, after the accused made his statement, introduced additional evidence strengthening its ease.” *Know*v. *State,*112 *Ga.*373 (37 S. E. 416); *Sharp*v. *State,*111 *Ga.*176 (1) (36 S. E. 633); *Jones*v. *State,*12 *Ga. App.*133 (2) (76 S. E. 1070).

Decided December 11, 1919.

Indictment for larceny of automobile; from Floyd superior court —Judge Wright. October 3, 1919.

*W. B. Mebane,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. H. Porter, solicitor-general,*contra.

2. The charge of the court, when read in its entirety, was full and fair.

3. The evidence in this case was sufficient to authorize the verdict of guilty.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEB 17, 2012

JOHN LEY

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 11-13801 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cr-60143-WJZ-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUBIELA VARGAS ORTIZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Florida

 ________________________

(February 17, 2012)

Before WILSON, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Robin J. Farnsworth, appointed counsel for Rubiela Vargas Ortiz in this

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Ortiz’s conviction and sentence

are AFFIRMED.

2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1064
In Re: ERMA J. ISTVAN, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-2304-PJM) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 20, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Erma J. Istvan, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Erma J. Istvan filed a petition for writ of mandamus, writ of prohibition, and mandatory permanent injunction seeking an order directing the district court to prohibit a civil action pending against her in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Maryland. Federal courts have no general power to compel action by state courts. See Davis v. Lansing , 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988); Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, we deny the petition. We deny the request for stay of state court proceedings, the motion for an injunction to vacate three state court orders, and the motion for costs and attorney’s fees. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                    THIS  SCHEDULE   CONTAINS  SUMMARY   FINANCIAL   INFORMATION
                    EXTRACTED   FROM    SIERRA-ROCKIES    CORPORATION   AND   IT
                    SUBSIDIARIES UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND
                    THE  RELATED  STATEMENT  OF INCOME FOR THE NINE  MONTHS THEN
                    ENDED AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               67,122
<PP&E>                                         5,999
<DEPRECIATION>                                 696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,259,380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,006,529
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       17,146
<OTHER-SE>                                     215,705
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,259,380
<SALES>                                        90,934
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               90,934
<CGS>                                          76,849
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  437,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,515)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             127,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (472,341)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (472,341)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (472,341)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.03)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

                               THEODORE B. SHAPIRO
                          2300 Glades Road, Suite 100-W
                            Boca Raton, Florida 33431



                                October 14, 2004


The Sagemark Companies Ltd.
1285 Avenue of the Americas, 35th Floor
New York, New York 10019

Gentlemen:

         Reference is made to the Executive Employment Agreement dated May 25,
2001 between the undersigned and The Sagemark Companies Ltd. (the "Employment
Agreement"). All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

         This shall confirm my agreement to limit the Bonus to which I am
entitled under Section 4 of the Employment Agreement to a maximum of $200,000 in
calendar years 2004 and 2005 (and to a prorated amount based upon such $200,000
maximum amount as provided in the Employment Agreement with respect to calendar
year 2006).

         The foregoing shall constitute an amendment to the Employment
Agreement. Other than as set forth herein, all of the other terms and provisions
of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not
be amended hereby.

                                             Very truly yours,

                                             /s/ THEODORE B. SHAPIRO
                                             --------------------------------
                                             Theodore B. Shapiro


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED
As of this 14th day of October, 2004

The Sagemark Companies Ltd.

By: /s/ GEORGE W. MAHONEY
    ---------------------------
Print Name and Title

                                       26
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned, Anthony J. Miceli, Chief Financial Officer of United
Capital Corp. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, with respect to the Annual
Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the
“Report”) 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.
  
   Date:  March
23, 2010
  
 /s/ Anthony J. MiceliAnthony
      J. MiceliChief
      Financial Officer
<PAGE>



MCN INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES                         EXHIBIT 12-2
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Dollars in Thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         Twelve Months         Twelve Months         Twelve Months
                                             Ended                 Ended                 Ended
                                       September 30, 1996     December 31, 1995     December 31, 1994
                                       ------------------     -----------------     -----------------
<S>                                    <C>                    <C>                   <C>
EARNINGS AS DEFINED (1) (4)
Pre-tax income (2)                     $           14,535     $          13,163     $           6,696
Fixed charges (3)                                  37,225                24,748                13,640
                                       ------------------     -----------------     -----------------
  Earnings as defined                  $           51,760     $          37,911     $          20,336
                                       ==================     =================     =================

FIXED CHARGES AS DEFINED (1) (4)
Interest, expensed                     $           36,246     $          24,151     $          13,365
Interest, capitalized                               7,570                 5,895                 2,089
Amortization of debt discounts,
  premium and expense                                 882                   520                   275
Interest implicit in rentals                           97                    77                   -
                                       ------------------     -----------------     -----------------
  Fixed charges as defined             $           44,795     $          30,643     $          15,729
                                       ==================     =================     =================
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                   1.16                  1.24                  1.29
                                       ==================     =================     =================


(1) Earnings and fixed charges are defined and computed in accordance with Item
    503 of Regulation S-K.

(2) This amount represents the aggregate of (a) the pre-tax income from
    continuing operations of MCN Investment and its majority-owned subsidiaries,
    (b) MCN Investment's share of pre-tax income of its 50% owned companies, and
    (c) any income actually received from less than 50% owned companies.

(3) Fixed charges added to earnings are adjusted to exclude interest capitalized
    during the period and, therefore, may differ from fixed charges as defined.

(4) In June 1996, MCN completed the sale of The Genix Group, its computer
    services subsidiary. For purposes of calculating the Ratio of Earnings to
    Fixed Charges, it has been classified as a discontinued operation and
    therefore excluded from the ratio for all periods presented.
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000837893
<NAME> 88AP.TXT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         411,618
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  120,420
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               532,038
<PP&E>                                       4,842,434
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,884,568
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,489,904
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,489,904
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,489,904
<SALES>                                        650,538
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               664,923
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  392,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                272,121
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            272,121
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   272,121
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    24.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>