alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOSE ANGEL PAMBLANCO

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 691

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed September 2, 2016

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County

, Marc L. Lubet , Judge.

Jose A ngel Pamblanco, Avon Park, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

EDWARDS , J.

Jose Pamblanco ("Appellant") appeals the partial denial of his motion seeking

postconviction relief. Though Appellant's motion raised numerous issues, only one issue

merits discussion

. Appellant asserts that his convictions and sentences for both (1)

traveling to meet a minor for an unlawful sexual act and (2) solicitation of a minor via a2

device capable of electronic data storage or transmission violate the prohibition against

double jeopardy.

The unlawful solicitation and travel took place over several days in February 2010.

Thus, the State could have charged Appellant with multiple counts of solicitation and

traveling with regard to the multiple offenses occurring on multiple occas ions. However,

the information charged Appellant with one count of solicitation and one count of traveling

based on the same conduct.

Relying upon Stapler v. State , 190 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), decided after

the postconviction court’s ruling in t his case, we find that the dual convictions and

sentences violated Appellant’s right to be free from double jeopardy. 190 So. 3d at 165.

Accordingly, we affirm his conviction under section 847.0135(4)(a), Florida Statutes

(2010), but reverse his convicti on under section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2010).

We remand for resentencing based upon Appellant’s recalculated scoresheet

. We affirm

as to all other issues raised by Appellant.

AFF IRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART , AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA and BERGER , JJ., concur.
#### Lee Gordon Steadman v. The State.

No. 22609.

Delivered November 3, 1943.

Rehearing Denied January 5, 1944.

The opinion states the case.

*Elihu E. Berwald*and *Max R. Rosenfield,*both of Dallas, for appellant.

*Spurgeon E. Bell,*State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant pleaded guilty to murder without malice before the court without a jury and was assessed a penalty of two years in the State penitentiary, from which he appeals.

The indictment is regular. The record contains no bills of exception and no statement of facts. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

In his motion for rehearing, appellant for the first time attacks the sufficiency of the indictment to support the conviction.

The indictment follows substantially that which has been approved by this Court. Simmons v. State, 169 S. W. (2d) 171; Houston v. State, 158 S. W. (2d) 1004, 143 Tex. Cr. R. 460.

*513The motion for rehearing is overruled.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# 7th Fleet Destroyer Transits Taiwan Strait 

U.S. 7th Fleet Public Affairs

TAIWAN STRAIT -- The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Milius (DDG 69) conducted a routine Taiwan Strait transit April 16 (local time) through waters where high-seas freedoms of navigation and overflight apply in accordance with international law.The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Milius (DDG 69) conducted a routine Taiwan Strait transit April 16 (local time) through waters where high-seas freedoms of navigation and overflight apply in accordance with international law. The ship transited through a corridor in the Strait that is beyond the territorial sea of any coastal State. Milius’ transit through the Taiwan Strait demonstrates the United States’ commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific. The United States military flies, sails, and operates anywhere international law allows.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
#### Rudolph Wohlidka, Respondent, v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York, Appellant.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
### **CHAPTER 981—MILITARY CLAIMS**

Sec.
9801.
Definition.
9802.
Admiralty claims against the United States.
9803.
Admiralty claims by United States.
9804.
Salvage claims by United States.
[9805.
Repealed.]
9806.
Settlement or compromise: final and conclusive.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §806(d)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1833, redesignated chapter 951 of this title as this chapter.

**1972**—Pub. L. 92–417, §1(7), Aug. 29, 1972, 86 Stat. 655, substituted "Admiralty claims against the United States" for "Damage by United States vessels; towage and salvage of United States vessels" in item 9802.

**1960**—Pub. L. 86–533, §1(7)(B), June 29, 1960, 74 Stat. 247, struck out item 9805 "Reports to Congress".
**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 Cosine Communications, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Terry R. Gibson, Director, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
      my


knowledge:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/
      Terry
      R. Gibson





Terry
      R.
      Gibson


Director,
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


May
      1,
      2007
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 222 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 222

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives about the Federal 
          Bureau of Investigation Crisis Negotiation Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 1999

Mr. Hyde submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives about the Federal 
          Bureau of Investigation Crisis Negotiation Program.

Whereas the Crisis Negotiation Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has 
        for the last twenty-five years worked to negotiate the release of 
        hostages;
Whereas the FBI agents who serve in the FBI's Crisis Negotiation Unit deserve 
        the gratitude of our nation for their bravery, devotion and their 
        ability to negotiate in the most dire situations the saving of lives of 
        countless hostages and law enforcement personnel;
Whereas the Crisis Negotiation Unit has also protected numerous potential 
        innocent bystanders from harm in many high profile hostage crisis 
        situations like the Lufthansa Skyjacking at John F. Kennedy Airport in 
        1993, to many serious incidents that have received little or no 
        publicity; and
Whereas the Crisis Negotiation Unit, a key element of the FBI's Critical 
        Incident Response Group, in performing its mission of operation, 
        training, research and program management has--

    (1) maintained a 24-hour-a-day operational response;

    (2) trained FBI negotiators and international law enforcement personnel 
through exchange programs; and

    (3) conducted research designed to expand the FBI's capability to 
assess, manage and successfully resolve many life-threatening crises: Now, 
therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives commends the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation's Crisis Negotiation Unit and, on behalf of all 
Americans, congratulates the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents who 
have, through their dedicated service to our nation, guarded the public 
safety in even the most challenging law enforcement situations.
                                 <all>
```
### **CHAPTER 1205—APPOINTMENT OF RESERVE OFFICERS**

Sec.
12201.
Reserve officers: qualifications for appointment.
12202.
Commissioned officer grades.
12203.
Commissioned officers: appointment, how made; term.
12204.
Commissioned officers: original appointment; limitation.
12205.
Commissioned officers: appointment; educational requirement.
12206.
Commissioned officers: appointment of former commissioned officers.
12207.
Commissioned officers: service credit upon original appointment.
12208.
Officers: appointment upon transfer.
12209.
Officer candidates: enlisted Reserves.
12210.
Attending Physician to the Congress: reserve grade.
12211.
Officers: Army National Guard of the United States.
12212.
Officers: Air National Guard of the United States.
12213.
Officers; Army Reserve: transfer from Army National Guard of the United States.
12214.
Officers; Air Force Reserve: transfer from Air National Guard of the United States.
12215.
Commissioned officers: reserve grade of adjutants general and assistant adjutants general.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2006**—Pub. L. 109–364, div. A, title V, §507(a)(2)(C), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2180, struck out "while so serving" after "reserve grade" in item 12210.

**1996**—Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title XV, §1501(b)(11)(B), (13)(B), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 496, substituted "Reserve officers: qualifications" for "Qualifications" in item 12201 and inserted "the" after "National Guard of" in items 12211, 12212, 12213, and 12214.
### **CHAPTER 48—MILITARY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES**

Sec.
951.
Establishment; organization; administration.
952.
Parole.
953.
Remission or suspension of sentence; restoration to duty; reenlistment.
954.
Voluntary extension; probation.
955.
Prisoners transferred to or from foreign countries.
956.
Deserters, prisoners, members absent without leave: expenses and rewards.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1984**—Pub. L. 98–525, title XIV, §1401(b)(2), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2615, added item 956.

**1980**—Pub. L. 96–513, title V, §511(26), Dec. 13, 1980, 94 Stat. 2922, added item 955.
### **CHAPTER 1411—ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION**

Sec.
14901.
Separation of chaplains for loss of professional qualifications.
14902.
Separation for substandard performance and for certain other reasons.
14903.
Boards of inquiry.
14904.
Rights and procedures.
14905.
Officer considered for removal: retirement or discharge.
14906.
Officers eligible to serve on boards.
14907.
Army National Guard of the United States and Air National Guard of the United States: discharge and withdrawal of Federal recognition of officers absent without leave.
Exhibit
8.1



Subsidiaries
of Can-FiteBioPharma Ltd.



The following
table sets forth the name and jurisdiction of incorporation of our subsidiaries as of March 27, 2015.



|                                                             |  | Jurisdiction of  
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------
|Name of Subsidiary                                           |  | Incorporation    
|                                                             |  |                  
|OphthaliX Inc.                                               |  | Delaware         
|                                                             |  |                  
|Eye-Fite Limited (wholly owned subsidiary of OphthaliX Inc.) |  | Israel           
|                                                             |  |                  
|Ultratrend Limited                                           |  | England and Wales
§ 11.606 Dissolution proceedings. ( a ) Either or both parties to the marriage may initiate dissolution proceedings.
( b ) If a proceeding is commenced by one of the parties, the other party shall be served in the manner provided by the applicable rule of civil procedure and within thirty days after the date of service may file a verified response.
( c ) The verified petition in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation shall allege that the marriage is irretrievably broken and shall set forth: ( 1 ) The age, occupation, and length of residence within the Indian country under the jurisdiction of the court of each party;
( 2 ) The date of the marriage and the place at which it was registered;
( 3 ) That jurisdictional requirements are met and that the marriage is irretrievably broken in that either ( i ) the parties have lived separate and apart for a period of more than 180 days next preceding the commencement of the proceeding or
( ii ) there is a serious marital discord adversely affecting the attitude of one or both of the parties toward the marriage, and there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation;
( 4 ) The names, age, and addresses of all living children of the marriage and whether the wife is pregnant;
( 5 ) Any arrangement as to support, custody, and visitation of the children and maintenance of a spouse; and
( 6 ) The relief sought.
§ 152.13 Removal of restrictions, Five Civilized Tribes, after application under section 2(a) of the Act of August 11, 1955. When an Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes makes application for removal of restrictions under authority of section 2(a) of the Act of August 11, 1955 (69 Stat. 666), the Secretary will determine the competency of the applicant. ( a ) If the Secretary determines the applicant to be competent, he shall issue an order removing restrictions having the effect stated in § 152.16.
( b ) If the Secretary rejects the application, his action is not subject to administrative appeal, notwithstanding the provisions concerning appeals in part 2 of this chapter.
( c ) If the Secretary rejects the application, or neither rejects nor approves the application within 90 days of the application date, the applicant may apply to the State district court in the county in which he resides for an order removing restrictions. If that State district court issues such order, it will have the effect stated in § 152.16.
### **CHAPTER 65—RETIREMENT OF WARRANT OFFICERS FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE**

Sec.
1293.
Twenty years or more: warrant officers.
1305.
Thirty years or more: regular warrant officers.
1315.
Computation of retired pay: law applicable.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1980**—Pub. L. 96–513, title V, §501(19), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2908, substituted "RETIREMENT OF WARRANT OFFICERS FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE" for "RETIREMENT FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE" as chapter heading.
§ 117.24 Compensation for guardians and their attorneys. ( a ) The superintendent may approve compensation for services rendered by the guardian of an Indian on an annual basis, the amount of the compensation to be determined by application of the following schedule to the moneys collected by the guardian: First $1,000 or portion thereof, not to exceed 10 percent. Second $1,000 or portion thereof, not to exceed 9 percent. Third $1,000 or portion thereof, not to exceed 8 percent. Fourth $1,000 or portion thereof, not to exceed 7 percent. Fifth $1,000 or portion thereof, not to exceed 6 percent. Sixth $1,000 or portion thereof, not to exceed 5 percent. Seventh $1,000 or portion thereof, not to exceed 4 percent. Eighth $1,000 or portion thereof, not to exceed 3 percent. Ninth $1,000 or portion thereof, not to exceed 2 percent. All above $9,000 not to exceed 1 percent.
( b ) Balance carried forward from previous reports and moneys received by a guardian or his attorney as compensation shall be excluded in determining the compensation of the guardian or his attorney.
( c ) The attorney for a guardian shall be allowed compensation in an amount equal to one-half of the amount allowed the guardian under the foregoing schedule except when such attorney is himself the guardian and acting as his own attorney, in which event he shall be allowed a fee of not to exceed one-fourth of the amount allowed the guardian under the foregoing schedule in addition to the fee as guardian.
( d ) The superintendent may in his discretion permit the guardian to collect rentals from restricted city or town properties belonging to his ward.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Statement of Chief Executive Officer 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 on Form 10-Q/A of Knight Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Thomas M. Joyce, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/ THOMAS M. JOYCEName:

Thomas M. JoyceTitle:

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerDate:

August 8, 2005




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 32

  Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer (CEO) and the Principal
Financial Officer (Chief Financial Officer) of Millenia Hope Inc. (the
"Company"), each hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:

         (a)      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
                  period ended February 28, 2007, filed on the date hereof with
                  the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully
                  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date: April 20,2007



                                               /s/ Leonard Stella
                                               ----------------------------
                                               Leonard Stella
                                               Chief Executive Officer


Date: April 20,2007




                                               /s/ Hugo Valente
                                               ----------------------------
                                               Hugo Valente
                                               Chief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.
### §10112. Air National Guard: when a component of the Air Force

The Air National Guard while in the service of the United States is a component of the Air Force.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1661(a)(1), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2971.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 8078 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, §1661(a)(3)(A).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 1, 1994, except as otherwise provided, see section 1691 of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as a note under section 10001 of this title.
**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 CoSine Communications, Inc. (the
        "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005
        as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        "Report"), I, Terry Gibson, Director, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
        Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
        1350,
        as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
        to
        my
 knowledge:
 
 (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/
        Terry Gibson
 Terry
        Gibson
 Director,
        Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 October
        31, 2005