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:

A15A1290. ADAMS v. THE STATE.

AppellantJerel Adams wasrequired to have filed an enumeration of errors and

brief in this Court by March 30, 2015. OCGA § 5-6-40 and Court of Appeals Rule 23

(a). Adams attempted to file a brief on March 27, 2015, but it was rejected and

returned to counsel because the attempted filing did not comply with Court of

Appeals Rule 1 (a). No amended brief has been filed as of June 29, 2015, nor was any

extension of time obtained. Therefore, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Rowland

v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995).

Mr. Adams, your appeal has been DISMISSED because you failed to file a

brief and enumeration of errors. If you have decided you do not want to appeal, you

need not do anything more. If, however, you do still want to appeal, you may have

the right to an OUT-OF-TIME APPEAL -- but YOU MUST TAKE ACTION to

exercise that right by moving for an out-of-time appeal in the trial court. If your

motion for an out-of-time appeal is granted, the trial courtshould appoint an attorney

for you if you want one and cannot pay for one. If your motion for an out-of-time

appeal is denied, you may appeal that denial to this Court within thirty (30) days of

the trial court’s decision.

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.

07/09/2015

July 09, 2015
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-64,546] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on November 26, 2008, in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Hightower Technology Capital, Inc., working on site at Hewlett-Packard Company, Vancouver, Washington. 

There are two existing certifications applicable to the petitioning group of workers: 

(1) Hewlett-Packard Company, Inkjet Consumer Solutions, HP Consumer Hardware Inkjet Lab, Vancouver, Washington (TA-W-64,127; certified October 23, 2008; amended January 9, 2009). 

(2) Hewlett-Packard Company, Imaging and Printing Group, Edgeline Development and Light Production Systems Operations Division, Edgeline Development and Operations, Vancouver, Washington (TA-W-64,633; certified December 19, 2008). 

Consequently, further investigation would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of January 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-1482 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-71,238]

Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 16, 2009 in response to a petition filed by United Steelworkers union officials on behalf of workers of John Maneely Company, Wheatland Tube Co. Division, a.k.a. Sharon Tube Co., 134 Mill Street, Sharon, Pennsylvania.

The subject worker group is covered by an earlier petition (TA-W-71,184) filed on June 16, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of June 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15768 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
@conference{1211946,
  author = {Olivia Williams and Yee-Yin Choong and Kerrianne Buchanan},
  title = {Youth understandings of online privacy and security: A dyadic study of children and their parents},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-07 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Proceedings of the Nineteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, Anaheim, CA, US},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934521},
  language = {en},
}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6689

JESSE M. JAMES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SHERIFF BARRY FAILE; MRS. DEBORAH HORNE,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

LANCASTER COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, in Lancaster, SC,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. David C. Norton, District Judge. (1:13-

cv-00211-DCN)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesse M. James, Appellant Pro Se. David Allan DeMasters, DAVIDSON 

& LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jesse M. James seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation denying relief on 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.

In a civil case in which the United States or its officer or 

agency is not a party, parties have 30 days following the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order in which to file a 

notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The timely filing 

of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). However, if a party moves for 

an extension of time to appeal within thirty days after expiration 

of the original appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect 

or good cause, a district court may extend the time to file a 

notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A); Washington v. 

Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900-01 (4th Cir. 1989).

James’ notice of appeal was received in the district court 

after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period but within the 

30-day excusable neglect period. Further, the notice of appeal 

arguably reflects a request for an extension of the 30-day appeal 

period.

Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of 

enabling the district court to determine whether James adequately 

requested such an extension and whether he has shown excusable 

neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. 
3

The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court 

for further consideration.

REMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,879
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,756
<ALLOWANCES>                                       955
<INVENTORY>                                     14,918
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,974
<PP&E>                                         122,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,528
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 159,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,215
<BONDS>                                         84,620
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           746
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,958
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   159,232
<SALES>                                        250,830
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               250,830
<CGS>                                          205,067
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  205,067
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,648
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,452
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,663
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,974
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,689
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (390)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,299
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.81
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED**

 

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report of VirtualRadiologic Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.             The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed inthe Report.

 
| Date:  | July 31, 2008 |   | By:    | /s/ Sean O. Casey, M.D. |
|--------|--------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |               |   |   | Sean O. Casey, M.D.     |
|   |               |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 88 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 88

  Expressing the opposition of the House of Representatives to a hard 
      border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2019

     Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the opposition of the House of Representatives to a hard 
      border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Whereas, in 1998, the Government of Ireland, the Government of the United 
        Kingdom, and the political party leaders of Northern Ireland agreed upon 
        the Good Friday Agreement to end years of violence;
Whereas the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland voted 
        overwhelmingly in favor of the Good Friday Agreement in a referendum on 
        May 22, 1998;
Whereas the completion of the Good Friday Agreement marked a historic success 
        and has been the basis for a peaceful resolution of a longstanding 
        conflict;
Whereas the United States is one of the three guarantors of the Good Friday 
        Agreement;
Whereas the United States has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to assist 
        in building a strong society, economy, and enduring peace in Northern 
        Ireland;
Whereas the United States has continuously supported the International Fund for 
        Ireland and appointed successive Peace Envoys to Northern Ireland;
Whereas continued United States engagement in the Northern Ireland peace process 
        is essential to protect the Good Friday Agreement;
Whereas a 2016 referendum in Britain to leave the European Union has increased 
        concerns about the future of the Good Friday Agreement and sustained 
        peace in Northern Ireland; and
Whereas the free flow of persons across open borders between the Republic of 
        Ireland and the United Kingdom has been a fundamental aspect of 
        promoting peace and unity throughout the implementation of the Good 
        Friday Agreement: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives opposes the imposition 
of a hard border, whether one that is strongly controlled by officials, 
police, or soldiers, or a physical barrier, between Northern Ireland 
and the Republic of Ireland.
                                 <all>
```
----

|   | -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. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|          |   |                                                |   |
|---------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| July 11, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Grant R. White                             |   |
|          |   | Grant R. White                                      |   |
|          |   | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|          |   |                                                |   |
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Anthony Austin Metts, * From the 385th District

 Court of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. CR29169.

Vs. No. 11-13-00203-CR * July 16, 2015

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00125-CR

Juan MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5481

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

SIGNED July 22, 2015.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Exhibit
32.02




CERTIFICATION




I, Debi B. Halbert, the Chief Financial
Officer of ProFutures, Inc., the general partner of ProFutures Diversified Fund,
L.P., certify that (i) the Annual Report of ProFutures Diversified Fund, L.P. on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
ProFutures Diversified Fund, L.P.









PROFUTURES
DIVERSIFIED FUND, L.P.




By:  ProFutures,
Inc., General Partner









By:  /s/ Debi B.
Halbert


Debi B. Halbert


Chief Financial Officer


April 15, 2009
Exhibit 32.1




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 Legacy Reserves LP (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Legacy Reserves GP, LLC (the "Company”), the general partner of the Partnership, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.






/s/ Cary D. Brown


/s/ Steven H. PruettCary D. Brown


Steven H. PruettChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board





August 6, 2010


President, Chief Financial Officer and

Secretary



August 6, 2010






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part of the Report.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 21, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00465-CR

LARRY LAMONT BORNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-16427-P

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Brown and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Brown

Larry Borner pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine in an amount less than one gram. 

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to two years’ confinement in a 

state jail, probated for three years, and assessed a $1,500 fine. The State later moved to revoke 

appellant’s community supervision. Following a hearing on March 25, 2015, the trial court 

denied the motion to revoke and modified the conditions of appellant’s community supervision. 

Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying the motion to revoke

community supervision. An order modifying the conditions of community supervision is not an 

appealable order. See Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Accordingly, 

we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See id.
–2–

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

150465F.U05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

LARRY LAMONT BORNER, Appellant

No. 05-15-00465-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-16427-P.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown, Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 21st day of July, 2015.
**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 Opes Exploration Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ken Ralfs,
      President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a member of the Board
      of
      Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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/
      Ken Ralfs*


Ken
      Ralfs


Chief
      Executive Officer




December
      17, 2007








**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 Opes Exploration Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ken Ralfs, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company and a member of the Board of Directors,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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/
      Ken Ralfs*


Ken
      Ralfs


Chief
      Financial Officer




December
      17, 2007