alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 11, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-2390

Lower Tribunal No. 08-15692

________________

Reginald Johnson,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat, Judge.

Reginald Johnson, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SHEPHERD, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J.
The defendant, Reginald Johnson, appeals the trial court’s summary denial

of his 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Out of the thirteen separate claims

the defendant raises, we find only one to have merit. Accordingly, we reverse and

remand only as to Claim 12 in the defendant’s motion.

In Claim 12, the defendant contends his counsel was ineffective for failing to

call three defense witnesses at trial. The trial court concluded that the defendant’s

motion “failed to state with particularity the names and addresses of the witnesses

as well as the content of their anticipated testimony and the effects this testimony

would have on the verdict.”

However, a review of the motion indicates that the defendant did, in fact,

state the names of the witnesses, allege they were available for trial, set forth the

specific testimony they would have given, and state its impact on, and

contradiction of, the state witnesses’ testimony. If there was any insufficiency, it is

only the failure to set forth the addresses of these three named witnesses. The trial

court should have permitted the defendant an opportunity to amend to add this

information. Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007); Lena v. State, 22 So. 3d

786, 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). There is nothing in the State’s response to the

defendant’s motion, or attached to the trial court’s order, that refutes the

defendant’s allegations in Claim 12. In addition, there is no finding that, if these

2
allegations were established, there is no reasonable probability of a different

outcome.

Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s order as to all claims, with the

exception of Claim 12. With respect to Claim 12, we reverse and remand for

further proceedings solely on that claim. In the event that the trial court determines

that Claim 12 is insufficient on its face (for failing to include the addresses of the

three named witnesses) it should, consistent with Florida Rule of Criminal

Procedure 3.850 (f)(2), enter a nonfinal, nonappealable order allowing the

defendant sixty (60) days to amend to set forth a legally sufficient claim.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

3
# C_2006178EN.01000101.xml

| 29.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/1

---

Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 June 2006 — P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA v Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Commission of the European Communities

(Joined Cases C-442/03 P and C-471/03 P) (1)

1

(State aid - Appeals - Actions for annulment - Decision terminating a review procedure initiated under Article 88(2) EC - Concept of State aid - Force of res judicata - Aid which may be declared compatible with the common market - Social aid - Conditions)

(2006/C 178/01)

Languages of the case: English and Spanish

Parties

Appellant (in Case C-442/03 P): P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA (represented by: J. Lever QC, J. Ellison, solicitor, and M. Pickford, barrister, assisted by E. Bourtzalas, abogado)

Appellant (in Case C-442/03 P):

Appellant (in Case C-471/03 P): Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández, M. Morales Isasi and J. Forguera Crespo, abogados)

Appellant (in Case C-471/03 P):

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Khan and J. Buendía Sierra, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 5 August 2003 in Joined Cases T-116/01 and T-118/01 P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v Commission dismissing an application seeking the annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2001/247/EC of 29 November 2000 on the aid scheme implemented by Spain in favour of the shipping company Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya SA, now P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA, and ordering the repayment of the aid held to be incompatible with the common market

P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders P&O Ferries (Vizcaya) SA and the Diputación Foral de Vizcaya to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders P&O Ferries (Vizcaya) SA and the Diputación Foral de Vizcaya to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 10.1.2004 and OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.

1

---
### §3157. Definitions; applicability

In this subchapter:

(1) Requirements definition.—The term "requirements definition" means the process of translating policy objectives and mission needs into specific requirements, the description of which will be the basis for awarding acquisition contracts for projects to be accomplished, work to be performed, or products to be delivered.

(2) Contingency program management.—The term "contingency program management" means the process of planning, organizing, staffing, controlling, and leading the combined efforts of participating civilian and military personnel and organizations for the management of a specific defense acquisition program or programs during combat operations, post-conflict operations, and contingency operations.

(3) Contingency contracting.—The term "contingency contracting" means all stages of the process of acquiring property or services by the Department of Defense during a contingency operation.

(4) Contingency contracting personnel.—The term "contingency contracting personnel" means members of the armed forces and civilian employees of the Department of Defense who are members of the defense acquisition workforce and, as part of their duties, are assigned to provide support to contingency operations (whether deployed or not).

(Added and amended Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1810(a), (b)(7), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4162, 4164.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

The text of subsec. (f)(1), (2), (5), and (6) of section 2333 of this title, which was transferred to this section and amended by Pub. L. 116–283, §1810(b)(7), was based on Pub. L. 109–364, div. A, title VIII, §854(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2343; Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title VIII, §849(a), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 245.

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283, §1810(b)(7), redesignated pars. (6), (5), (2), and (1) of subsec. (f) of section 2333 of this title as pars. (1) to (4), respectively, of this section.

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

#### Effective Date

Section and amendment by Pub. L. 116–283 effective Jan. 1, 2022, with additional provisions for delayed implementation and applicability of existing law, see section 1801(d) of Pub. L. 116–283, set out as an Effective Date of 2021 Amendment note preceding section 3001 of this title.
#### § 585.3 How do I appeal a notice of violation, proposed civil fine assessment, order of temporary closure, the Chair's decision to void or modify a management contract, the Commission's proposal to remove a certificate of self regulation, the Chair's decision to approve or object to a tribal gaming regulatory authority's adoption of alternate standards from those required by the Commission's minimum internal control standards and/or technical standards, and notices of late fees and late fee assessments?

Within 30 days after the Chair serves his or her action or decision, or the Commission serves notice of its intent to remove a certificate of self-regulation, the appellant must file a notice of appeal with the Commission. The notice of appeal must reference the action or decision from which the appeal is taken and shall include a written waiver of the right to an oral hearing before a presiding official and an election to have the matter determined by the Commission solely on the basis of written submissions. Unless the Commission has extended the time for filing an appeal brief pursuant to § 580.4(f) of this subchapter, the appeal brief must be filed within 30 days of service of the record pursuant to § 585.6. The appeal brief shall state succinctly the relief sought and the supporting ground(s) therefor, and may include supporting documentation.
§ 700.515 Conflicts of interest. ( a ) A conflict of interest may exist when an employee uses, or appears to use, his or her official position to obtain benefits for himself or herself, close friends, relatives, or business associates. A conflict of interest may also exist if an employee's private activities interfere with the proper discharge of his or her official duties. If an employee has any doubt about whether or not a particular situation is, or gives the appearance of being a conflict of interest, the situation should be discussed with the immediate supervisor. Should further review be required, the Designated Agency Ethics Official shall be consulted.
( b ) Principal situations where conflict of interest may develop are regulated by the sections which follow. However, these regulations do not preclude other conflict of interest situations which may arise in connection with the work of the Commission.
( c ) These prohibitions apply to all Commission employees, whether or not they are required to file financial and employment disclosure statements.
#### § 500.102 Application.

This part applies to all programs or activities conducted by the agency.
# C_2006294EN.01003706.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/37

---

Order of the President of the Court of 19 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-113/06) (1)

1

(2006/C 294/75)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.

1

---
§ 571.11 Depositions. ( a ) Any party wishing to depose a witness shall file a request with the Commission or, if a presiding official has been designated under part 584 of this chapter, to the presiding official. Such a request shall not be granted except for good cause shown. A Commissioner or a presiding official may order testimony to be taken by deposition in any proceeding or investigation pending before the Commission at any stage of such proceeding or investigation, except that Commission personnel may not be questioned by deposition for the purposes of discovery, but may be questioned by written interrogatories as authorized by the Commission or a presiding official. Commission records are not subject to discovery under this chapter. The inspection of Commission records is governed by § 571.3 of this part and the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. Depositions under this section may be taken before any person designated by the Commission or a presiding official, and who has the power to administer oaths.
( b ) A party or a Commissioner (or a person designated by a Commissioner under paragraph (a) of this section) proposing to take a deposition under this section shall give reasonable notice to the Commission and the parties, if any, of the taking of a deposition. Notice shall include the name of the witness and the time and place of the deposition.
( c ) Every person deposed under this part shall be notified of his or her right to be represented by counsel during the deposition, and shall be required to swear or affirm to testify to the whole truth. Testimony shall be reduced to writing and subscribed by the deponent. Depositions shall be filed promptly with the Commission or, if a presiding official has been designated, with the presiding official.
( d ) Witnesses whose depositions are taken as authorized in this section, and the persons taking the same, shall be severally entitled to the same fees as are paid for like services in the courts of the United States.
[58 FR 5842, Jan. 22, 1993, as amended at 80 FR 31995, June 5, 2015]
# C_2006294EN.01005901.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/59

---

Action brought on 4 October 2006 — Omya v Commission

(Case T-275/06)

(2006/C 294/119)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Omya AG (Oftringen, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Flynn, Barrister, and C. Ahlborn, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | [...] Omya therefore respectfully asks the Court to annul the decision and to order the Commission to pay Omya's costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

[...] Omya therefore respectfully asks the Court to annul the decision and to order the Commission to pay Omya's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 3163 final of 19 July 2006 in merger case COMP/M.3796 by which the Commission declared the applicant's take over of the precipitated calcium carbonate business from J.M. Huber Corporation compatible with the common market and the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. The Commission further imposed certain conditions and obligations with which the applicant is to comply.

The applicant contends that (a) the competition concerns which the Commission has identified are unfounded and (b) that in any event the remedies effectively imposed on the applicant are inappropriate and are not justified by the concerns identified by the Commission and are not capable of producing the effects claimed by the Commission.

The applicant invokes three pleas in law in support of its application.

Firstly, the applicant submits that the Commission manifestly erred in concluding that the transaction would significantly impede effective competition.

Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission manifestly erred in its assessment and breached the principle of proportionality in requiring the disposal of the Kuusankoski plant.

Thirdly, the applicant invokes that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements by failing to analyse properly the evidence in its file and failing to provide the applicant with access to all relevant documents, thereby infringing the applicant's rights of defence.

---
Transaction Summary   1   • Acquisition adds 11 inpatient rehabilitation hospitals in   Texas, Massachusetts, and Ohio with a total of 902 beds.    • Reliant generated approx. $249 million of revenue in 2014.   • All 11 hospitals are leased, and 7 of the leases are treated as   capital leases for accounting purposes. HealthSouth will assume   the lease obligations of all 11 acquired hospitals.   • $730 million purchase price   ― Expect to realize approx. $125 million to          $150 million (NPV) tax benefit   ― The cash purchase price will be reduced based on   any remaining limited partner equity interests at   closing (limited partner interests currently   aggregated to less than 10% of Reliant).   ― Capital lease obligation to be recognized on   HealthSouth’s balance sheet upon closing is   subject to the final purchase price allocation and   is preliminarily estimated at approximately $210   million.   • Accretive upon closing   ― Reliant generated Adjusted EBITDA of approx.   $82 million in 2014.   ― The acquisition is expected to be immediately   accretive (excluding transaction costs) to   earnings per share.   • Transaction to be funded with cash on hand and   senior debt   • Expected to close in 2015   ― Subject to Hart-Scott-Rodino approval and other   regulatory approvals            • 8 IRFs in Texas   • 2 IRFs in Massachusetts   • 1 IRF   in Ohio
 Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals   Home Health Locations   Hospice Locations   Pediatrics Locations   New Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals    under development   Reliant Hospitals (8-TX, 2– MA, 1-OH)   Largest Owner and Operator of Freestanding IRFs      2   Benefits of the Reliant   acquisition:   • Eight of the hospitals   strategically complement   existing HealthSouth IRF   locations, particularly in Texas.    • Opportunity to expand patient   care for our recently acquired   home health business   • Enhance strategic positioning to   be the post-acute provider of   choice for ACOs, bundling   initiatives, and payors seeking   geographic coverage/   alternatives   The Addition of 11 Reliant Hospitals Expands the Portfolio to 120 IRFs.
#### In the Matter of Daniel Mojica, Appellant, v Brion D. Travis, as Chair of the Board of Parole, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 497]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered May 15, 2006 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

In 1991, petitioner was convicted of four counts of murder in the second degree and was sentenced to concurrent terms of nine years to life in prison. In January 2005, he made his fourth appearance before the Board of Parole for parole release. At the conclusion of the hearing, his request for parole release was denied and he was ordered held for an additional 24 months. This determination was subsequently affirmed on administra*1156tive appeal. Petitioner then commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Following Supreme Court’s dismissal of the petition, this appeal ensued.

We affirm. Based upon our review of the record, we do not find that the Board’s decision evinces “ ‘irrationality bordering on impropriety’ ” such as to warrant its annulment *(Matter of Silmon v Travis,*95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting *Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]). In denying petitioner’s request for parole release, the Board considered the appropriate factors set forth in Executive Law § 259-i, including not only the serious nature of petitioner’s crimes, but also his criminal history, prison disciplinary record, program accomplishments and postrelease plans (see *Matter of Rivera v Dennison,*25 AD3d 856, 857 [2006]; *Matter of Vasquez v State of N.Y. Exec. Dept., Div. of Parole,*20 AD3d 668, 669 [2005]). Petitioner’s claim that the Board based its decision solely on the violent nature of his crimes is not substantiated by the record. In any event, we note that the Board was not required to give each statutory factor equal weight (see *Matter of Rivera v Dennison, supra*at 857 [2006]). Furthermore, we find no merit to petitioner’s contention that the Board’s decision is the product of an informal executive policy to deny parole to violent felons (see *Matter of Tatta v Dennison, 26*AD3d 663, 663-664 [2006], *lv denied 6*NY3d 714 [2006]).

Spain, J.P, Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
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		 

Home : Resources

About DoDDoD CareersJoin the MilitaryNewsUSA.govPhotos & VideosPrivacy & SecurityTop Issues

US INDOPACOM Inspector GeneralDoD Inspector GeneralAccessibility/Section 508DoD FOIAUS INDOPACOM FOIALink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActRecovery ActINDOPACOM Webmaster

                  - Facebook
                  - X
                  - YouTube
                  - Flickr
                  - Instagram
                  - RSS

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
### [§2797. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XI, §1121(b), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2687]

Section, added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title X, §1074(a), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2861, related to unauthorized use of Defense Mapping Agency name, initials, or seal.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1996, see section 1124 of Pub. L. 104–201, set out as an Effective Date of 1996 Amendment note under section 193 of this title.
§ 47.2 What definitions apply to terms in this part? *Act* means the No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law 107-110, enacted January 8, 2002. The No Child Left Behind Act reauthorizes and amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the amended Education Amendments of 1978.
*Budget* means that element in the local educational financial plan which shows all costs of the plan by discrete programs and sub-cost categories.
*Bureau* means the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior.
*Consultation* means soliciting and recording the opinions of Bureau-operated school boards regarding each element of the local educational financial plan and incorporating these opinions to the greatest degree feasible in the development of the local educational financial plan at each stage.
*Director* means the Director, Office of Indian Education Programs.
*Local educational financial plan* means the plan that: ( 1 ) Programs dollars for educational services for a particular Bureau-operated school; and
( 2 ) Has been ratified in an action of record by the local school board or determined by the superintendent under the appeals process in 25 CFR part 2.
*OIEP* means the Office of Indian Education Programs in the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior.
*Secretary* means the Secretary of the Interior or a designated representative.
#### CFI Construction, Inc., Respondent, v Central Square Central School District, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[823 NYS2d 735]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oswego County (James W. McCarthy, A.J.), entered December 30, 2005. The order denied that part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *CFI Constr., Inc. v Central Sq. Cent. School Dist.*(34 AD3d 1354 [2006]). Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Martoche and Green, JJ.
### [§2357. Renumbered §4067]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2357, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 135, required Secretary of each military department to report to Congress on contracts for research and development, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XIII, §1301(11), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1668.