alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 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 :

A2 3 A0 04 3 . W I LFREDO MONTES v . J AYHI LL TRUCKI NG et a l

.

W i l fred o M o n tes s eek s t o ap p eal fro m t h e su p eri o r c ou rt ’ s o rd er affi rm i n g a d eci s i o n o f t h e St at e Bo ard o f W o rk ers ’ Co m p en s at i o n. Ho wev er, an ap p eal fro m a d eci s i o n o f t h e s u p eri o r co u rt rev i ewi n g a d eci si o n o f t h e St a t e Bo ard of W o rk ers ’
Co m p en s at i o n m

u s t b e b ro u g h t b y

ap p l i cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap peal . See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 ); Ad i va r i v. S ea rs , Ro eb u ck & Co

. , 22 1 Ga. Ap p

. 2 7 9
, 2 79 (4 7 1 SE2 d
5 9 ) (1 9 9 6 ). Becau s e M on t es fai l ed t o fo l l o w th e p ro p er ap p el lat e p ro ced u re, hi s
ap p eal i s h ereb y D ISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n. See Ad i va r i , 2 2 1 Ga. Ap p . at
2 7 9

.

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 f y 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 ig n a t u r e a n d t h 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

. August 04, 2022

08/04/2022
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19156]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2373-000]


GenOn Holdco 7, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of GenOn Holdco 7, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 25, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1a7a4b3a2ae8f8d888f84b29491918e9395a187849382cf868e97"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bdddec9d8d4f5f7f2f5fec8eeebebf4e9efdbfdfee9f8b5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a> or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, 
call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 5, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19156 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Royce Eugene MITCHELL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Marc W. HOLDER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-20173

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 10, 2008.

Royce Eugene Mitchell, Jr., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Royce Eugene Mitchell, Jr. is seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal ■ the district court’s denial of his motion to proceed IFP in the district court based on a failure to state a claim. The district court relied on the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283 in making its ruling.

Mitchell seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the enforcement of state court orders imposing a fine for a speeding ticket that Mitchell received. He contends that the matter should have been reviewed by an agency and that the state municipal and county courts, and in particular, County Judge Holder, did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the pro*729ceedings. He also argues that Tex Govt. Code Ann. § 80.00027 should be declared unconstitutional because it resulted in the denial of his right to appeal the county court’s decision. Mitchell argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint based on the Anti-Injunction Act because it resulted in the denial of his constitutional rights.

Under the Anti-Injunction Act, “[a] court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (emphasis added). The listed exceptions “are narrow and are ‘not [to] be enlarged by loose statutory construction.’ ” *Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp.,*486 U.S. 140, 146, 108 S.Ct. 1684, 100 L.Ed.2d 127 (1988) (citation omitted).

Mitchell has not alleged that the state court action is subject to any statutory exception to the Anti-Injunction Act or that the proceedings will have any effect on the jurisdiction of the federal court or any of its judgments. Thus, Mitchell has not shown that the district court erred in determining that his complaint seeking injunctive relief failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Mitchell has failed to raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. His motion to proceed IFP on appeal is denied, and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2; *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983).

Mitchell was previously cautioned that filing additional frivolous suits or appeals could result in the imposition of sanctions. *See Mitchell v. Texas,*No. 03-20836 (5th Cir. June 30, 2004). It is ordered that a sanction of $150.00 is imposed and that the clerk accept no further pleadings from Mitchell until the sanction is paid. *See Coghlan v. Starkey,*852 F.2d 806, 817 (5th Cir.1988).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED; MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
#### Jay Patrick Mellen vs. Lowell Division of the District Court Department.

December 14, 2007.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Superintendence of inferior courts. *Notice.*

*Jay Patrick Mellen,*pro se.

*Jennifer Cartee,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Jay Patrick Mellen appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

In the District Court, a clerk-magistrate found Mellen responsible for certain civil motor vehicle infractions when Mellen failed to appear at a hearing on the matter, on March 2, 2006. Mellen claimed that the notice he received stated the hearing was scheduled for the next day, March 3, 2006, and in various subsequent actions he took in the District Court, Superior Court, and before a single justice of the Appeals Court, he unsuccessfully sought a stay of the suspension of his driver’s license and a new hearing. He was not able, however, to produce the notice he received or any other evidence to support his claim that there had been a mistake concerning the hearing date. Because the District Court’s docket entries indicate that the scheduled hearing date was indeed March 2, 2006, and Mellen has not presented any evidence to the contrary, there was no error in denying Mellen’s petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 19 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 19

 To express the disfavor of Congress regarding the proposed agreement 
for cooperation between the United States and the People's Republic of 
 China transmitted to the Congress by the President on April 21, 2015, 
               pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 15, 2015

 Mr. Rubio (for himself and Mr. Cotton) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                           Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 To express the disfavor of Congress regarding the proposed agreement 
for cooperation between the United States and the People's Republic of 
 China transmitted to the Congress by the President on April 21, 2015, 
               pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress does not 
favor the proposed agreement for cooperation transmitted to the 
Congress by the President on April 21, 2015.
                                 <all>
```
#### Edward Tyrone CARTER, Petitioner, v. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Respondent.

No. 2008-3089.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 10, 2008.

Edward Tyrone Carter, pro se.

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE and LINN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

Upon review of this recently docketed petition for review of a decision of an arbitrator in Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service No. 070312-54595-A, the court considers whether it should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Edward Tyrone Carter was a Library of Congress employee. Carter filed a grievance challenging his removal and the Fraternal Order of Police/Library of Congress Labor Committee (Union) requested arbitration. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service held an arbitration proceeding. On October 1, 2007, an arbitrator upheld the Library of Congress’s determination to remove Carter. On December 3, 2007, the court received Carter’s petition for review of the arbitrator’s decision.

This court’s jurisdiction to review arbitrator’s decisions is limited to cases in which the adverse action could have been appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. *Bonner v. Department of Veterans Affairs,*477 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed.Cir.2007). An employee of the Library of Congress may not appeal adverse actions to the Board. *Gardner v. Library of Congress,*774 F.2d 1081 (Fed.Cir.1985). Thus, Carter may not seek review of the arbitrator’s decision in this court.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 20 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 20

  Relating to the approval of the proposed Agreement for Cooperation 
Between the United States of America and the Government of the Republic 
          of Korea Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 28, 2015

  Mr. Cardin (by request) introduced the following joint resolution; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Relating to the approval of the proposed Agreement for Cooperation 
Between the United States of America and the Government of the Republic 
          of Korea Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress does favor 
the proposed agreement for cooperation transmitted to the Congress by 
the President on June 16, 2015.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10513 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TIMOTHY JAMES AYERS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:93-CR-113-1-T

- - - - - - - - - - April 19, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Timothy James Ayers appeals from the revocation of his term of supervised release for violating two supervised-release conditions. Ayers argues that his procedural due process rights were violated because the district court revoked his term of supervised release based solely on his counsel’s statement that Ayers intended to plead true to the allegations against him, rather than obtaining a personal admission of guilt from Ayers.No. 98-10513 -2- Because Ayers failed to object to this alleged error, we review this issue for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Ayers has failed to show any error at all, let alone that the alleged error by the district court affected his substantial rights. He cannot show plain error. See United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Order entered June 4, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00095-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.E.P., A CHILD, Appellant

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-07681

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s motion for leave to file a late brief. We GRANT the 

appellee’s motion and ORDER the appellee’s brief be filed within twenty (20) days of the date 

of this order. 

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG 

JUSTICE
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 898 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the participation 

of optometrists in the National Health Service Corps scholarship and 

loan repayment programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 13, 2015 

Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BOOZMAN, and Mr. CASSIDY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 

the participation of optometrists in the National Health 

Service Corps scholarship and loan repayment programs, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Health Serv5 ice Corps Improvement Act of 2015’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 898 IS

1 SEC. 2. PARTICIPATION OF OPTOMETRISTS IN NATIONAL 

2 HEALTH SERVICE CORPS. 

3 (1) PRIMARY HEALTH CARE SERVICES.—Sec4 tion 331 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 254d) is amended— 

6 (A) in subsection (a)(3)(D), by striking 

7 ‘‘or mental health,’’ and inserting ‘‘optometry, 

8 or mental health,’’; and 

9 (B) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ‘‘and 

10 physician assistants’’ and inserting ‘‘optom11 etrists, and physician assistants’’. 

12 (2) SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.—Section 338A of 

13 the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l) is 

14 amended— 

15 (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ‘‘and 

16 physician assistants’’ and inserting ‘‘optom17 etrists, and physician assistants’’; and 

18 (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ‘‘or 

19 other health profession’’ and inserting ‘‘optom20 etry, or other health profession’’. 

21 (3) LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM.— 

22 (A) PARTICIPATION.—Section 338B of the 

23 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l–1) 

24 is amended— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 898 IS

1 (i) in subsection (a)(1), by striking 

2 ‘‘and physician assistants’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘optometrists, and physician assistants’’; 

4 (ii) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by strik5 ing ‘‘or another health profession’’ and in6 serting ‘‘optometry, or another health pro7 fession’’; and 

8 (iii) in subsections (b)(1)(B) and 

9 (b)(1)(C)(ii), by striking the term ‘‘or 

10 other health profession’’ each place such 

11 term appears and inserting ‘‘optometry, or 

12 other health profession’’. 

13 (B) PERIOD OF OBLIGATED SERVICE.— 

14 Clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 338C(b)(5)(C) 

15 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

16 254m(b)(5)(C)) are amended by striking the 

17 term ‘‘or other health profession’’ each place 

18 such term appears and inserting ‘‘optometry, or 

19 other health profession’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 07-15-00308-CV

In the Interest of H.H., a Child §

§

§

§ From the 237th District Court

of Lubbock County

September 18, 2015

Opinion by Justice Hancock

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated September 18, 2015

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that this appeal be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
EX-34.9
(logo) pwc


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland
Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association ("Midland" or the
"Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial
mortgage-backed securities transactions (the "Platform"), as of December 31,
2013 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii),
1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii),
1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has
determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with
respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as
we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,
testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and
determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and
performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing
activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.
Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors
that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have
affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during
the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Midland complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2013 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 24, 2014


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106
T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890, www.pwc.com/us