alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ROBERT R. MILLER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1D13-5503

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 14, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Kevin A. Blazs, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Pamela D. Presnell, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

We previously affirmed appellant’s sentences based on our en banc decision 

in Walton v. State, 106 So. 3d 522, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Walton I), where this 

court held that “any mandatory minimum term required by section 775.087(2) –
2

whether the defendant fires a gun, or only carries or displays it – shall be imposed 

consecutively to any other term imposed for any other felony.” However, the 

Florida Supreme Court quashed our decision in this case and remanded for 

reconsideration in light of its decisions in Walton v. State, 208 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 

2016) (Walton II), and Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016). 

In Williams, the supreme court held that the 10-20-Life statute does not 

require consecutive sentences when the sentences arise from a single criminal 

episode. Rather, the supreme court held that “a trial judge has discretion to order 

the mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively, but may impose the 

sentences concurrently.” Williams, 186 So. 3d at 993. In so determining, the 

supreme court noted that “[g]enerally, consecutive sentencing of mandatory 

minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the 

offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed 

but not discharged”; however, “[if] . . . multiple firearm offenses are committed 

contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then 

consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory.” Id. The supreme court 

did not explicitly discuss a case factually similar to this one, in which appellant 

committed two gun-related offenses, attempted second-degree murder and 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, but appellant’s crimes involved only 

one victim who sustained only one physical injury. 
3

In line with our precedent outlined in Burns v. State, 212 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 

1st DCA 2017), and Wilson v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D993b (Fla. 1st DCA May 

2, 2017), we therefore REVERSE and REMAND appellant’s sentences for the trial 

court to reconsider whether, in its discretion, it wishes for appellant to serve his 

minimum mandatory sentences concurrently or consecutively. In so ruling, we 

certify conflict with Torres-Rios v. State, 205 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). 

ROBERTS, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit
32
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Synthenol Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 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 operation of the Company.
  
 August 14, 2008
              
              /s/ Cecil Morris(Date)
              
              Cecil
      Morris
                Director,
      President
 
 August 14, 2008
              
              /s/ John Page(Date)
              
              John
      Page
                Director
      / Treasurer
# CA2006044EN.01000101.xml

| 22.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 44/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 44/1

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Image

---
(No. 78-CC-1306

#### Marzell Reed, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed November 2, 1978.*

*790Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In *Bargas v. State, 32*Ill.Ct.Cl.__, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State, supra,*and *Doubling v. State, supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AMENDMENT
NO. 1 ON FORM 10-K/A FOR YEAR-ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FORM 10-K/A FOR YEAR-ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          59,985
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,215,812
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  8,576,960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,449,383
<PP&E>                                       8,593,460
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,539,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,423,741
<BONDS>                                      3,887,593
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        5,477,072
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,053
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,647,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,539,664
<SALES>                                     67,124,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            67,124,137
<CGS>                                       43,218,466
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               65,084,379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (244,067)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,158,249
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,125,576
<INCOME-TAX>                                   572,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            553,576
<DISCONTINUED>                               1,021,602
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,575,178
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


            Certification of the Director, Executive Vice President,
                     Secretary and Chief Financial 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 of Markland Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the six months ended December 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Kenneth P. Ducey, Jr., the Director, Executive Vice President, Secretary and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:


(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/ Kenneth P. Ducey, Jr.
---------------------------------------------
Kenneth P. Ducey, Jr.
Director, Executive Vice President, Secretary
  and Chief Financial Officer


Date: February 14, 2003
### §682. Game refuge in Ozark National Forest

The President of the United States is authorized to designate such national forest lands within the Ozark National Forest, within the State of Arkansas, as should, in his discretion, be set aside for the protection of game animals, birds, or fish; and, except under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture may from time to time prescribe, it shall be unlawful for any person to hunt, catch, trap, willfully disturb, or kill any kind of game animal, game or nongame bird, or fish, or take the eggs of any such bird on any lands so set aside, or in or on the waters thereof.

(Feb. 28, 1925, ch. 376, 43 Stat. 1091; Aug. 11, 1945, ch. 365, 59 Stat. 531; June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §12, 62 Stat. 861.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1948—Act June 25, 1948, struck out penal provisions (see section 41 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure), and inserted provision relating to the unlawfulness in hunting, catching, etc., game animals, etc., under rules and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture.

1945—Act Aug. 11, 1945, struck out last sentence which read "No lands within the present limits of the fourth congressional district shall be included in such designations."

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

#### Effective Date of 1948 Amendment

Section 20 of act June 25, 1948, provided that the amendment made by that act is effective Sept. 1, 1948.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Presidential Designation

Lands comprising the Ozark National Game Refuge were designated by Proclamations of June 13, 1928 (45 Stat. 2953), and Oct. 25, 1935 (49 Stat. 3478).
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4888 

To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 28, 2019 

Mr. SCHRADER (for himself, Ms. BONAMICI, Mr. DEFAZIO, and Mr. BLUMENAUER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, 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. GRAND RONDE RESERVATION ACT AMEND4 MENT. 

5 Section 1(d) of Public Law 100–425 (commonly 

6 known as the ‘‘Grand Ronde Reservation Act’’) (102 Stat. 

7 1594) is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘lands within 

9 the State of Oregon’’ and inserting ‘‘the 84 acres 

10 known as the Thompson Strip’’; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4888 IH

1 (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para2 graph (3); and 

3 (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(2) GAMING PROHIBITION.—Any real property 

6 obtained by the Tribes as part of a land claim settle7 ment approved by the United States shall not be eli8 gible, or used, for any class II gaming or class III 

9 gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

10 (25 U.S.C. 2701, et seq.) (as those terms are de11 fined in section 4 of that Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)).’’. 

12 SEC. 2. TREATY RIGHTS OF FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED 

13 TRIBES. 

14 Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this 

15 Act, shall be construed to enlarge, confirm, adjudicate, af16 fect, or modify any treaty right of an Indian tribe (as de17 fined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and 

18 Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Louise H. Case et al., Plaintiffs, and Clifton Ore Company, Inc., Appellant and Respondent, v. W. H. Loomis Talc Corporation, Respondent and Appellant.

All concur.
### §7128. Termination of authority

#### (a) In general

The authority to initiate projects under this subchapter shall terminate on September 30, 2025.

#### (b) Deposits in Treasury

Any project funds not obligated by September 30, 2026, shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States.

(Pub. L. 106–393, title II, §208, as added Pub. L. 110–343, div. C, title VI, §601(a), Oct. 3, 2008, 122 Stat. 3909; amended Pub. L. 112–141, div. F, title I, §100101(a)(2), (8), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 905, 906; Pub. L. 113–40, §10(a)(2)(E), Oct. 2, 2013, 127 Stat. 545; Pub. L. 114–10, title V, §524(c)(4), Apr. 16, 2015, 129 Stat. 180; Pub. L. 115–141, div. O, title IV, §401(b)(4), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1079; Pub. L. 116–94, div. I, title III, §301(b)(2), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 3021; Pub. L. 117–58, div. D, title XII, §41202(d)(2), Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 1134.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 208 of Pub. L. 106–393 was set out in a note under section 500 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 110–343, div. C, title VI, §601(a), Oct. 3, 2008, 122 Stat. 3893.

#### Amendments

2021—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 117–58, §41202(d)(2)(A), substituted "2025" for "2022".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 117–58, §41202(d)(2)(B), substituted "2026" for "2023".

2019—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 116–94, §301(b)(2)(A), substituted "2022" for "2020".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 116–94, §301(b)(2)(B), substituted "2023" for "2021".

2018—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–141, §401(b)(4)(A), substituted "2020" for "2017".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 115–141, §401(b)(4)(B), substituted "2021" for "2018".

2015—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–10, §524(c)(4)(A), substituted "2017" for "2013".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–10, §524(c)(4)(B), substituted "2018" for "2014".

2013—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 113–40, §10(a)(2)(E)(i), substituted "2013" for "2012".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 113–40, §10(a)(2)(E)(ii), substituted "2014" for "2013".

2012—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–141, §100101(a)(2), substituted "2012" for "2011".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 112–141, §100101(a)(8), substituted "2013" for "2012".

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

#### Wage Rate Requirements

For provisions relating to rates of wages to be paid to laborers and mechanics on projects for construction, alteration, or repair work funded under div. D or an amendment by div. D of Pub. L. 117–58, including authority of Secretary of Labor, see section 18851 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
### §80d. Administration, protection, and development

The administration, protection, and development of the Kings Canyon National Park shall be exercised under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior by the National Park Service, subject to the provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), entitled "An Act to establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes",1 as amended.

(Mar. 4, 1940, ch. 40, §5, 54 Stat. 44.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), entitled "An Act to establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes", referred to in text, is act Aug. 25, 1916, ch. 408, 39 Stat. 535, known as the National Park Service Organic Act, which enacted sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this title and provisions set out as a note under section 100101 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs. Sections 1 to 4 of the Act were repealed and restated as section 1865(a) of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and section 100101(a), chapter 1003, and sections 100751(a), 100752, 100753, and 102101 of Title 54 by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 4(a)(1), 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3260, 3272. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables. For disposition of former sections of this title, see Disposition Table preceding section 100101 of Title 54.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

1 See References in Text note below.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEI MU

,

P etitioner

,

v.

MERRICK GARLAND

,

Attorney General, Respondent

. No. 20

- 719 34

Agency No. A200

- 801

- 171

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 4 , 2021 * *
Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Wei Mu , a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals ’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of

her application for asylum . We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1 252, and,

reviewing the BIA’s “legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 6 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

substantial evidence,” Bringas

- Rodriguez v. Sessions

, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th

Cir. 2017) (citation omitted), we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mu was not

credible and thus ineligible for relief. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156

(9th Cir. 2003). Mu repeatedly testified that she was alone in her home when five

policemen arres ted her for hosting an illegal religious gathering in 2010. Her

asylum application, however, stated that she w as with her family during the arrest.

“[I]nconsistencies regarding events that form the basis of the asylum claim are

sufficient to support an a dverse credibility determination. ” Zamanov v. Holder

,

649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). And contrary to Mu ’s contention, this was not

an “utterly trivial inconsistency,” like a spelling or typographical error

. See

Shrestha v. Holder

, 590 F.3d 1034, 104 3 (9th Cir. 2010).

In addition, Mu testified that she was employed at the Water Bureau from

19 83 to 2010 , despite her visa application stating that she stopped working there in

1999

. When asked about this , Mu provided inconsistent testimony. She first told

t he court that she left the department in 1999 but came back, and that she did not

know why her application was false. Yet a t a subsequent hearing

, she admitted

that that explanation had been a lie, and that a middle agent had instructed her to

fabricate her employment dates to better her chances of obtaining a visa. Mu may

have had reason to fabricate her employment dates when trying to obtain the visa,3

but not to lie in court after she had been away from danger for more than six years.

See Singh v. Holde r , 638 F.3d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir. 2011). Given the

contradictions in Mu’s accounts, and the insufficiency of her purportedly

corroborative evidence, the record supports the agency’s denial of asylum.

PETITION DENIED

.
#### § 101.43 Reduction of time to file documents.

For good cause, the reviewing authority or the presiding officer, with respect to matters pending before them, may reduce any time limit prescribed by the rules in this part, except as provided by law or in part 100 of this chapter.

[45 FR 30931, May 9, 1980, as amended at 79 FR 76095, Dec. 19, 2014]
#### § 105.31 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 105.32, no qualified individual with handicaps shall, because the Department's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with handicaps, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the Department.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-104-CR

MICHAEL SAPIEN	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	A jury convicted Appellant Michael Sapien of felony driving while intoxicated and assessed his punishment at thirty-two years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  The trial court sentenced him accordingly.  Appellant brings a single point on appeal, arguing that the trial court erroneously granted the State’s motion to strike a member of the venire for cause.

	The law is well settled that a defendant must object when the challenge is granted, or he waives any error in the granting of the challenge.2  The record reflects no objection to the trial court’s granting of the State’s challenge of the venire member.  Therefore, Appellant has failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review.3  We overrule his sole point on appeal and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

							LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

							JUSTICE

PANEL A:	CAYCE, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  May 12, 2005
Case 16-12528-BFK Doc 170 Filed 06/23/21 Entered 06/28/21 14:44:04 Desc MainDocument Page 1 of 3Case 16-12528-BFK Doc 170 Filed 06/23/21 Entered 06/28/21 14:44:04 Desc MainDocument Page 2 of 3Case 16-12528-BFK Doc 170 Filed 06/23/21 Entered 06/28/21 14:44:04 Desc MainDocument Page 3 of 3