alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In the Matter of the Marriage of Eugene 

Howell Sauls and Josephine Marie Worley

No. 06-20-00103-CV

Appeal from the 296th District Court of 

Collin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 296-

52296-2020). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Josephine Marie Worley, has adequately indicated her

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 18, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 10125]

The Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, Department of State, gives notice of a public meeting to discuss possible topics for future work related to arbitration or conciliation in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The public meeting will take place on Tuesday, October 17, 2017 from 10:00 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. EDT. This is not a meeting of the full Advisory Committee.

UNCITRAL's Working Group II (Dispute Settlement) is currently working on the development of a convention and model legislative provisions on conciliated settlements that resolve international, commercial disputes. Once this negotiation is completed, however, it is unclear whether UNCITRAL should pursue additional work in the area of dispute settlement, and if so, what the new project should be. One topic that has been proposed by the International Academy of Construction Lawyers relates to the use of adjudication procedures in construction disputes. The purpose of the public meeting is to obtain the views of concerned stakeholders on (1) whether the Working Group should address construction contract adjudication, and (2) what, if any, other possible topics related to arbitration, conciliation, or other forms of dispute settlement merit attention by the Working Group.

*Time and Place:*                     The meeting will take place on October 17, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. via a teleconference. Those who cannot participate but wish to comment are welcome to do so by phone or email to Tim Schnabel at                     *SchnabelTR@state.gov*                     or 202-776-8781.                

*Public Participation:*                     This meeting is open to the public. If you would like to participate by telephone, please email                     *pil@state.gov*                     to obtain the call-in number and other information.                

 Timothy R. Schnabel,

Attorney-Adviser, Office of Private International Law, Office of Legal Adviser, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2017-19357 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dorothy COCHRAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-13309

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 23, 2008.

E. Vaughn Dunnigan, E. Vaughn Dunnigan, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Byung J. Pak, Amy Levin Weil, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

E. Vaughn Dunnigan, Esq., appointed counsel for Dorothy Cochran, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared 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 counsels’ assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, therefore, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Cochran’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### PATTERSON v. LUMBARD, U. S. Atty., et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

July 7, 1954.

Reuben Terris, New York City, for relator.

J. Edward Lumbard, U. S. Atty., New York City, Richard Owen, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel, for U. S.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

The relator, detained under an order issued by Judge John F. X. McGohey for his commitment based upon relator’s wilful and deliberate refusal to comply with the direction of this Court for the production of certain books and records, seeks his release upon a writ of habeas corpus. The order of Judge McGohey was issued on July 1, 1954, and on the same date petitioner surrendered to the marshal.1 Petitionér now contends that he was entitled to an automatic ten day stay of the execution of Judge McGohey’s order under Rule 62(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that no execution shall issue on a judgment until the expiration of ten days after its entry. He also relies upon Rule 54(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which defines “judgment” as used in the Rules to include “a decree and any order from which an appeal lies.” It is conceded that an appeal lies from the order entered herein and such an appeal is now pending.

While the question of Rule 62(a)’s applicability to civil contempt proceedings has not previously been adjudicated in this circuit, the point has been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In re Manufacturers Trading Corp., 6 Cir., 194 F.2d 948, 957. There, the Court held that contempt proceedings are sui generis, being “in their nature summary; swift in execution; and their efficiency depends upon their summary character.” The Court continued:

> “It is not conceivable that it was the intent to destroy the very es~ sence of their nature, by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If everytime a witness, being of the opinion that an examination before the court was illegal, or burdensome, or oppressive, refused to answer a *141question, and upon an order adjudging him guilty of contempt and remanding him to jail, became entitled to an automatic stay of ten days before the order could be enforced, contempt proceedings would lose all of their inherent quality and efficiency; and unless it clearly appears that such was the intent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they can not be so construed.” Id., 194 F.2d at page 957.

This Court finds the reasoning of In re Manufacturers Trading Corp., supra, persuasive. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.

Settle order on notice.

1

. On the return of the settlement of the order, the relator submitted a counter proposed order which contained a ten day stay provision but Judge McGohey signed the Government’s order, which contained no such stay provision.
Exhibit 31.2



I, Rocco DelGuercio, Chief Financial
Officer of CM Finance Inc certify that:



1. I have reviewed
this annual report on Form 10-K of CM Finance Inc;



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



3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



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



(a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and



(c)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
and



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



(a)
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and



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



Dated this 30th day of August 2016.



|    |  |                                                  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------ | 
|By: |  | /s/Rocco
        DelGuercio                     
|    |  | Rocco DelGuercio
        Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

COMMUNITY CENTRAL BANK CORPORATION
FORM 10-QSB (continued)




                                   EXHIBIT 11
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Three Months Ended                       Nine Months Ended
                                                          September 30,                           September 30,
                                                    2002                2001                2002                2001
                                                   ------              ------              ------              ------
                                                                  (in thousands, except per share data)
<S>                                                <C>                 <C>                 <C>                 <C>
BASIC

Net Income                                         $  496              $  441              $1,340              $1,230
/ Weighted Average Shares                           2,627               2,611               2,620               2,610
                                                   ------              ------              ------              ------

Basic Earnings Per Share                           $ 0.19              $ 0.17              $ 0.51              $ 0.47
                                                   ======              ======              ======              ======


DILUTED

Net Income                                         $  496              $  441              $1,340              $1,230
/ Weighted Average Shares                           2,651               2,615               2,644               2,612
                                                   ------              ------              ------              ------
Diluted Earnings Per Share                         $ 0.19              $ 0.17              $ 0.51              $ 0.47
                                                   ======              ======              ======              ======
</TABLE>



                                       29
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19 - 0608

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BARAK JAMES MCGHEE,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Katherine M. Bidegaray , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 7 2021

04/07/2021
Case Number: DA 19-0608
1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-2623

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Kenneth Jay Still, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 18, 2009 Filed: December 29, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Kenneth Still challenges the 24-month prison term the district court 1 imposed after revoking his superv ised release. Still argues that the court erred in revoking his supervised release, that his sentence is unreasonable, and that his counsel was ineffective. S till’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and Still has filed a pro se motion for reconsideration of this court’s earlier denial of his motion for appointment of new counsel.-2- Upon careful review, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Still’s supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (court may revoke supervised release if it finds by preponderance of evidence thatdefendant violated conditions of supervised releas e); United States v. Edwards , 400 F.3d 591, 592 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“Given [defendant ’s] admission of the violation, we find no clear error in the district court’s findings of fact supporting the revocation and no abuse of discretion in the decision to revoke .”). Furthermore, we conclude that the revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson , 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance w ith United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005)). The sentence is within the statutory limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), and the district court adequately considered the rele vant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (before revoking supervised release and imposing sentence, court must consider specified factors in § 3553(a), including § 3553(a)(1) (nature and circumstances of offense and history and characteristics of defendant)); United States v. Franklin , 397 F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005) (c ourt need only consider relevant matters, and need not make specific findings on each § 3553(a) factor); see also United States v. Lewis , 519 F.3d 822, 824-25 (8th Cir. 2008) (district courts need not consider effect of prior revocation prison sentences).
Last, we decline to consider Still’s ineffective-assistance claim. See United States v. Hughes , 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003) (ineffective-assistance claim is more properly reviewed in habeas proceedings).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s mo tion to withdraw, deny Still’s pending motion, and affirm.

______________________________
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 46 6 . AGNES SCOTT COLLEGE, I NC. v . AMANDA HARTLEY.

Ap p el l ee A m a n d a Hart l ey h as fi l ed a m o ti o n t o d i s m is s t h i s ap p eal b as ed o n

Ap p el l an t ’ s fai l u re t o fo l lo w th e i n t erl o cu t o ry a p p e a l p r o ced u res

. Th at m o t i o n i s

h ereb y GRANTED, an d t h e ap p eal i s DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## 12/31/2015 December 31, 2015
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2019 (the “Report”) of Oaktree Strategic Income Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mel Carlisle , the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:


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


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





/s/    Mel CarlisleName:    Mel CarlisleDate: November 19, 2019
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 285 

Commemorating the life and accomplishments of Robert Edward Simon, Jr. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 8, 2015 

Mr. KAINE (for himself and Mr. WARNER) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the life and accomplishments of Robert 

Edward Simon, Jr. 

Whereas in 1961, Robert Edward Simon, Jr. (referred to in 

this preamble as ‘‘Bob Simon’’) purchased 6,750 acres of 

undeveloped land in Northern Virginia and in 1964, established on the land the town of Reston, Virginia; 

Whereas the vision of Bob Simon for economic development— 

(1) involved communities that integrate jobs, residential housing, commercial business, recreational resources, outdoor space, accessible transportation, and pedestrian-friendly geography; and 

(2) was a vision that, in 2015, is known as ‘‘smart 

growth’’; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 285 ATS 

Whereas the vision of Bob Simon for a community was a 

community that included residents of all income levels 

and racial backgrounds at a time during which, in Virginia, housing was segregated and interracial marriage 

was banned; 

Whereas Bob Simon is credited with mainstreaming the idea 

of robust citizen participation in local development plans 

through community associations; 

Whereas Bob Simon returned to live in Reston from 1993 

until his passing on September 21, 2015, at 101 years 

of age; and 

Whereas, as of September 2015, Reston, Virginia is a 

62,000-citizen town in the Northern Virginia Dulles Corridor, which continues to develop along the lines that Bob 

Simon envisioned: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate recognizes the contribu2 tions of Robert E. Simon, Jr.— 

3 (1) in founding Reston, Virginia; 

4 (2) in setting a trend of vibrant urban develop5 ment in Virginia; and 

6 (3) in inspiring and empowering citizens across 

7 the United States. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0336

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

PHILLIP MARTIN LONG,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 14, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 9 2024

09/09/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0336
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 13, 2017. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 13, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17I0264. IN THE INTEREST OF J. N., A CHILD (MOTHER).
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Juvenile Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 152204
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 75 FR 6677, dated February 10, 2010) is amended to reflect the Order of Succession for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Section C-C, Order of Succession, is hereby amended as follows:

Delete in its entirety Section C-C, Order of Succession, and insert the following:

During the absence or disability of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or in the event of a vacancy in that office, the first official listed below who is available shall act as Director, except that during a planned period of absence, the Director may specify a different order of succession:

1. Principal Deputy Director

2. Director, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response

3. Associate Director for Science

4. Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Sherri Berger,

Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2017-19023 Filed 9-7-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4160-18-P