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

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 22

- 1679

_____________________________
M AREK K. S PERZYNSKI a nd K

AZIMIERA M. S PERSYNSKA , Appellant s ,

v.

H OLLEY BY THE S EA I MPROVEMENT A SSOCIATION , I NC ., U. S

. B ANK T RUST , N. A
., a s Trustee f or L SF 9 Master Participation Trust
, Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. Clifton A. Drake , Judge

. December 11, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , W INOKUR , and L ONG , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Todd M. LaDouceur, Chris K. Ritchie, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith, P.L.C., Pensacola
, for Appellant s

. Sara F. Holladay, Emily Y. Rottmann, E. Paul Cuffe
, McGuireWoods LLP, Jacksonville, for Appellee s

.
### §8306. Medal of honor: duplicate medal

A person awarded a medal of honor shall, upon written application of that person, be issued, without charge, one duplicate medal of honor with ribbons and appurtenances. Such duplicate medal of honor shall be marked, in such manner as the Secretary of the Navy may determine, as a duplicate or for display purposes only.

(Added Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title V, §553(b)(1)(A), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1116, §6256; renumbered §8306, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(b)(13), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 8306, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 516, related to promotion of officers in regular grade of colonel to grade of brigadier general, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 96–513, title II, §204, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2880, effective Sept. 15, 1981. See section 619 et seq. of this title.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6256 of this title as this section.

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
§ 243.2 What terms do I need to know? *Act* means the Reindeer Act of September 1, 1937 (50 Stat. 900; 25 U.S.C. 500 *et seq.*), as amended.
*Alaska Native* means Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts inhabiting Alaska at the time of the Treaty of Cession of Alaska to the United States and their descendants currently living in Alaska.
*Alaskan reindeer* means: ( 1 ) All reindeer descended from those present in Alaska at the time of passage of the Act; and
( 2 ) Any caribou introduced into animal husbandry or that has joined a reindeer herd.
*BIA* means the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the United States Department of the Interior.
*Designee* means the person assigned by the Alaska Regional Director to administer the reindeer program.
*Imported reindeer* means reindeer brought into Alaska from any region outside of Alaska since passage of the Act.
*Native reindeer organization* means any corporation, association, or other organization, whether incorporated or not, composed solely of Alaska Natives, for the purpose of engaging in or promoting the reindeer industry.
*Non-Native* means a person who is not an Alaska Native.
*Regional Director* means the officer in charge of the Alaska Regional Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
*Reindeer products* mean the meat, hide, antlers, or any other products derived from reindeer.
*Transfer* means the conveyance of ownership of reindeer or reindeer products, or any interest in them or interest in an Alaska Native reindeer organization, by any method.
*We, us* and *our* mean the Regional Director or the Director's designee.
#### In the Matter of K.H., youth in need of care.

No. 85-049.

June 6, 1985.

701 P.2d 720.

Joe L. Hege, J. Dennis Corbin, Miles City, for appellant.

John S. Forsythe, Co. Atty., Forsyth, Mike Greely, Atty. Gen., Helena, John Houtz, Forsyth, for respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

Due to the excessive lapse of time and in light of the singular im*268portance of this matter this Court suspends the rules pursuant to Rule 3, M.R.App.Civ.P., and invokes its inherent supervisory powers.

On November 26, 1984, the Rosebud County Attorney petitioned in District Court for intervention in a domestic relationship wherein K.H., a child, was allegedly being sexually abused. This petition was one for temporary investigative authority and protective services pursuant to section 41-3-402. MCA.

At the initial hearing on December 6,1984, the affidavit supporting the petition was insufficient and the District Court ordered a new petition and affidavit be filed. Temporary custody of K.H. was awarded to the county welfare department. This order was an order for immediate protection of youth oursuant to section 41-3-403, MCA.

At the second hearing, on December 17, 1984, with new petition and affidavit, the District Court found probable cause for State intervention and ordered temporary investigative authority until February 4, 1985. During this time, custody was in the mother and restrictions were placed on the father’s visitation.

The parents filed a notice of appeal on January 21, 1985. The proceeding was properly placed in abeyance by the District Court because the notice of appeal removed jurisdiction from the District Court and vested it in this Court.

We note that an order for temporary investigative authority and protective services may be an appealable order within Rule 1, M.R.App.Civ.P., particularly in the instance where a parent is deprived of custody. However, in such a case appeal will ordinarily not be an adequate remedy because of the time necessarily involved. Therefore, the relief of an aggrieved party should properly be pursued through a writ of certiorari, habeas corpus, or supervisory control.

The record before this Court is sufficient to render a decision and order. Both sides of this matter are adequately set forth. We hold that the proceedings at District Court are in substantial compliance with the applicable statutes and rules.

IT IS ORDERED:

The appeal shall be treated as a writ of certiorari. The writ is denied on the grounds that the District Court proceedings are in substantial compliance with law and the petitioners were not prejudiced thereby.

*269The District Court shall conduct an adjudicatory hearing on the Matter of K.H. at the earliest possible time.

DATED this 6th day of June, 1985.

s/J.A. Turnage, Chief Justice

s/John Conway Harrison, Justice

s/William E. Hunt, Sr., Justice

s/Fred J. Weber, Justice

s/John C. Sheehy, Justice

s/Frank B. Morrison, Jr., Justice

s/L.C. Gulbrandson, Justice
H. Res. 391

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

November 18, 1999.

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the

House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE: Mr. Baca of California.

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE: Mr. Baca of California.

Attest:

Clerk.
### §9406. Service schools: leaves of absence for instructors

The officer in charge of an Air Force or Space Force service school may grant a leave of absence for the period of the suspension of the ordinary academic studies, without deduction of pay or allowances, to any officer on duty exclusively as an instructor at the school.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 561, §9306; renumbered §9406, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §806(a)(3), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1832; Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title IX, §923(d)(3), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3814.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 9306 | 10:843. | Mar. 23, 1910, ch. 115 (proviso under "United States Service Schools"), 36 Stat. 244. |

The words "The provisions of section 1144 of this title, authorizing leaves of absence to certain officers of the Military Academy * * * are hereby extended to include" are omitted as surplusage.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Prior sections 9411 to 9413 were renumbered sections 9481 to 9483 of this title, respectively.

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283 inserted "or Space Force" after "Air Force".

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 9306 of this title as this section.

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
Exhibit 31.1
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, David Guthrie, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Consolidated Energy, Inc. for the
period ending September 30, 2004;

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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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 small business
issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: November 12, 2004

/s/David Guthrie
David Guthrie, President (Principal Executive Officer)
### [§2355. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–355, title II, §2002(a), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3303]

Section, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 135, authorized Secretary of each military department to prescribe by regulation the extent of itemization, substantiation, or certification of vouchers for funds spent under research or development contracts prior to payment.
# C_2006224EN.01003903.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/39

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — IMPALA v Commission

(Case T-464/04) (1)

1

(Competition - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market - Markets for recorded music and on-line music - Existence of a collective dominant position - Risk of creation of a collective dominant position - Conditions - Transparency of the market - Deterrence - Statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

(2006/C 224/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala, international association) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Crosby and J. Golding, Solicitors, and I. Wekstein-Steg, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan and K Mojzesowicz, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners: Bertelsmann AG (Gütersloh, Germany) (represented by: J. Boyce, Solicitor, P. Chappatte and D. Loukas, lawyers), Sony BMG Music Entertainment BV (Vianen, Netherlands) and Sony Corporation of America (SCA) (New York, United States) (represented by: N. Levy, Barrister, R. Snelders and T. Graf, lawyers)

Interveners:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 2815 of 19 July 2004 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.3333 — Sony/BMG)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 2815 of 19 July 2004 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.3333 — Sony/BMG); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 2815 of 19 July 2004 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.3333 — Sony/BMG);

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by the applicant;

| 3. | Orders the applicant to bear one quarter of its costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the applicant to bear one quarter of its costs;

| 4. | Orders the interveners to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6 of 8.1.2005

1

---
* 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. 00-40859 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MAURICIO LOPEZ-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-00-CR-296-1

-------------------- April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mauricio Lopez-Gutierrez appeals his sentence for illegal reentry by a previously deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). He argues that in view of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63 (2000), his prior felony conviction was an element of the offense under § 1326(b)(2) and not merely a sentence enhancement. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 247 (1998), but states that he is preserving it for possible Supreme Court review because the Supreme Court indicated inNo. 00-40859 -2- Apprendi that Almendarez-Torres may have been wrongly decided. Because the Supreme Court has not overruled Almendarez-Torres , this court is compelled to follow it

. See United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Because Lopez-Gutierrez’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , the judgment is AFFIRMED.
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLMT922200-11-L13100000-FI0000-P;MTM 96122]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), Oasis Petroleum North America LLC timely filed a petition for reinstatement of competitive oil and gas lease MTM 96122, Richland County, Montana. The lessee paid the required rental accruing from the date of termination.

                        No leases were issued that affect these lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre and 16                        2/3                         percent. The lessee paid the $500 administration fee for the reinstatement of the lease and $163 cost for publishing this Notice.                    

The lessee met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We are proposing to reinstate the lease, effective the date of termination subject to:
      - The original terms and conditions of the lease;
      - The increased rental of $10 per acre;
      - The increased royalty of 162/3                         percent; and                    
      - The $163 cost of publishing this Notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Teri Bakken, Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section, Bureau of Land Management Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, 406-896-5091.

Teri Bakken,

Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section.

[FR Doc. 2011-4125 Filed 2-23-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
§ 293.8 What documents must be submitted with a compact or amendment? Documentation submitted with a compact or amendment must include: ( a ) At least one original compact or amendment executed by both the Tribe and the State;
( b ) A Tribal resolution or other document, including the date and place of adoption and the result of any vote taken, that certifies that the Tribe has approved the compact or amendment in accordance with applicable Tribal law and IGRA;
( c ) Certification from the Governor or other representative of the State that they are authorized to enter into the compact or amendment in accordance with applicable State law;
( d ) Any agreement between a Tribe and a State, its agencies, or its political subdivisions required by a compact or amendment if the agreement: ( 1 ) Requires the Tribe to make payments to the State, its agencies, or its political subdivisions; or
( 2 ) Restricts or regulates a Tribe's use and enjoyment of its Indian lands, and any other ancillary agreements, documents, ordinances, or laws required by the compact or amendment that the Tribe determines are relevant to the Secretary's review; and
( e ) Any other documentation requested by the Secretary that is necessary to determine whether to approve or disapprove the compact or amendment. If a compact includes revenue sharing, a market analysis or similar documentation as required by § 293.27.
### Geochemical and geologic relations of gold and other elements at the Gold Acres open-pit mine, Lander County, Nevada

By: Chester T. WruckleTheodore J. Armbrustmacher

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp860

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
# C_2006183EN.01001201.xml

| 5.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4279 — GDF/Camfin/Energia Investimenti JV)

(2006/C 183/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 July 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4279. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4279. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---