alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DONALD CRAIG GORE,

Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL D. CREWS, 

SECRETARY, FLORIDA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D12-907

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 2, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Julian E. Collins, Judge.

Appellant Donald Craig Gore, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee. Barbara Debelius, Assistant General Counsel, Department 

of Corrections, Tallahassee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of a final order in Circuit Court Case No. 2011-41-CA

dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which Appellant, a prison inmate, 

alleged his entitlement to immediate release. The trial court issued its ruling 
without affording Appellee an opportunity to show cause concerning whether 

Appellant was properly awarded all jail, prison, and gain-time credit. On 

Appellee’s proper concession of error, we reverse the order and remand with 

instructions that the trial court issue an order for Appellee to show cause regarding 

(1) whether Appellant has been properly awarded all jail, prison, and gain-time 

credits that are due under the law and as set forth in Gisi v. State, 4 So. 3d 613 

(Fla. 2009), and Rabedeau v. State, 2 So. 3d 191 (Fla. 2009), and (2) whether such 

an award would affect Appellant’s consecutive 21-year sentence. To ensure 

consistent rulings on substantially similar issues, we direct the trial court to 

consolidate this case and Circuit Court Case No. 2012-178-CA (appealed as 

#1D12-2828) for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

ROBERTS, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.

2
#### STATE, Respondent, v. MONDRY, Appellant.

(203 N. W. 468.)

(File No. 5714.

Opinion filed April 18, 1925.)

False Pretenses — Criminal Law — Information—Information Held Insufficient in Omitting Averment of Knowledge of Want of Credit.

Information, in prosecution under Laws 1923, c. 121, charging defendant with passing a check, knowing that he did not have sufficient funds on deposit in bank against which check was drawn to pay same, held insufficient to charge a public offense, in absence of additional statutory averment that he knew that he did not have sufficient credit to meet same.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Day County; Hon. J. J. Batter-Ton, Judge.

J. A. Mondry was convicted of passing a check without sufficient funds on deposit to pay same, and he appeals.

Reversed.

*Waddel & Dougherty,*of Webster, for Appellant.

*I. S. Coomes,*State’s Attorney, and *L. H. Woodivorth,*Deputy State’s Attorney, both of Webster, and *Buell P. Jones,*Attorney General, for Respondent.

POLLEY, P. J.

Defendant was convicted upon an information charging him with a violation of chapter 121, Laws 1923. This statute makes it unlawful for a person to execute and deliver a check for any sum of money on a bank, knowing at the time of the execution and delivery of such check that he has not sufficient funds on deposit in said bank, or credit with said bank, to pay -such check. The information charges only that at the time of the execution and delivery of the check involved the defendant knew that he did not have sufficient funds on deposit in the bank against which the check was drawn to pay the same.

Defendant demurred to the information upon the ground, among others, that the information does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense. This demurrer should have been sustained. The crime created by this statute consists of two essential elements: First, that defendant must know at the time he delivers the check that he has not sufficient funds in the bank to -pay the same; and, second, he must know that he has not sufficient credit at such bank, so that the check will be paid when presented. *190In order to constitute the offense attempted to be charged, both elements must be charged; and in order to warrant a conviction, both elements must be proved. The information must charge, not only that the defendant did not have sufficient funds on deposit in the bank against which it was drawn, but that he knew that he did not have sufficient credit either. In this case every statement made in the information may be true, and still the defendant not be guilty.

Note. — Reported in 203 N. W. 468. See, Headnote, American. Key-Numbered Digest, False Pretenses, Key-No. 30, 25 C. J. Sec. 72, Banks and banking, 7 C. J. Sec. 391.

As to whether mere drawing of check on bank in which the drawer has no funds or credits and passing the same is false pretense, see notes in 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 244; 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1032; 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 919.

The judgment and order appealed from are reversed.

CAMPBELL, J., not present.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1024

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jacob Lloyd Montgomery

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs

____________

 Submitted: May 21, 2015

Filed: June 2, 2015 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jacob Montgomery directly appeals the sentence that the district court1

 imposed

upon his guilty plea to an escape charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa.
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court

abused its discretion at sentencing in denying Montgomery a reduction for acceptance

of responsibility and imposing an unreasonable sentence. 

Upon careful review, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.

2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision), we conclude that the court

did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Montgomery. Specifically, we find that the

court did not clearly err in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction based

on the sentencing testimony presented regarding Montgomery’s post-plea conduct, see

United States v. William, 681 F.3d 936, 938 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review);

United States v. Arellano, 291 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (8th Cir. 2002) (defendant’s postplea behavior is relevant consideration for determining acceptance of responsibility),

and the sentence is not unreasonable, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007). Further, upon independently reviewing the record in accordance with Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.

______________________________

-2-
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 13, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128183 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128183 

 COA: 249494 

Wayne CC: 03-002377

JAMES SISTRUNK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 27, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1006 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 13, 2005 

Clerk
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 Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General
 AGENCY: Office of Inspector General, HHS.
 ACTION: Notice of program exclusions; correction.
 SUMMARY: The HHS Office of Inspector General Published a document in the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         of September 15, 2003, imposed exclusions. The document contained an incorrect exclusion type.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Freeman, (410) 786-5197. Correction In the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         of September 15, 2004, in FR Doc. 20710, on page 55641, correct the exclusion date to read: LABONTE, MARY
9/20/2004SCOTTSDALE, AZ
 Dated: September 21, 2004. Katherine B. Petrowski, Director, Exclusions Staff, Office of Inspector General.


[FR Doc. 04-22046 Filed 9-30-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-04-P
§ 4.813 Filing and service. ( a ) All documents submitted in a proceeding shall be served on all parties. The original and two copies of each document shall be submitted for filing. Filings shall be made with the administrative law judge or other appropriate Departmental official before whom the proceeding is pending. With respect to exhibits and transcripts of testimony, only originals need be filed.
( b ) Service upon a party or amicus shall be made by delivering one copy of each document requiring service in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, properly addressed with postage prepaid, to the party or amicus or his attorney, or designated representative. Filing will be made in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the administrative law judge or other appropriate Departmental official before whom the proceeding is pending.
( c ) The date of filing or of service shall be the day when the matter is deposited in the U.S. mail or is delivered in person.
( d ) A document may be electronically transmitted under the terms specified in § 4.22, subpart B.
[36 FR 7186, Apr. 15, 1971, as amended at 88 FR 5794, Jan. 30, 2023]
**EXHIBIT31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Gary S. Jacob, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ofCallisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

2) Based on my knowledge, this annual report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report;

4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;

b) [paragraph omitted in accordance with SECtransition instruction contained in SEC Release 34-47986]

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions);

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
| Date: April 17, 2007 | /s/ Gary S. Jacob  |   |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                      | Gary S. Jacob           |
|                      | Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
§ 4.1307 Elements; burdens of proof. ( a ) OSM shall have the burden of going forward with evidence to establish a prima facie case that: ( 1 ) A corporate permittee either violated a condition of a permit or failed or refused to comply with an order issued under section 521 of the Act or an order incorporated in a final decision by the Secretary under the Act (except an order incorporated in a decision issued under sections 518(b) or 703 of the Act or implementing regulations), unless the fact of violation or failure or refusal to comply with an order has been upheld in a final decision in a proceeding under § 4.1150 through 4.1158, § 4.1160 through 4.1171, or § 4.1180 through 4.1187, and § 4.1270 or § 4.1271 of this part, and the individual is one against whom the doctrine of collateral estoppel may be applied to preclude relitigation of fact issues;
( 2 ) The individual, at the time of the violation, failure or refusal, was a director, officer, or agent of the corporation; and
( 3 ) The individual willfully and knowingly authorized, ordered, or carried out the corporate permittee's violation or failure or refusal to comply.
( b ) The individual shall have the ultimate burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence as to the elements set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( c ) OSM shall have the ultimate burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence as to the elements set forth in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section and as to the amount of the individual civil penalty.
[53 FR 8754, Mar. 17, 1988, as amended at 68 FR 66728, Nov. 28, 2003]
#### § 3512.33 Does an assignment or sublease alter the permit or lease terms?

No, it does not alter permit or lease terms.
#### § 2569.407 Is there a limit to how much water frontage my selection can include?

Generally, yes. You will normally be limited to a half-mile along the shore of a navigable water body, referred to as 160 rods (one half-mile) in the regulations at 43 CFR part 2090, subpart 2094. If you apply for land that extends more than 160 rods (one half-mile), the BLM will treat your application as a request to waive this limitation. As explained in 43 CFR 2094.2, the BLM can waive the half-mile limitation if the BLM determines the land is not needed for a harborage, wharf, or boat landing area, and that a waiver will not harm the public interest. If the BLM determines it cannot waive the 160-rod (one half-mile) limitation, the BLM will issue a decision finding your selection includes lands that are not available Federal lands and then follow the procedures set out at § 2569.503.
#### Martha Thompson, Respondent, v. Close-Up, Inc., Appellant.

Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
PROCEDURES AND FORMS

USED IN ADMINISTERING THE

SACRAMENTO RIVER CONTRACT

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT – CALIFORNIA

APRIL 1967

(FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY)

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Petition of --

Advanced Technology International 

d/b/a SCRA Applied R&D 

Under Contract No. SP4701-12-A-0012 

APPEARANCE FOR THE PETITIONER: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59698-952 

Cory E. Manning, Esq. 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP 

Columbia, SC 

Daniel K. Poling, Esq. 

DLA Chief Trial Attorney 

Kristin K. Bray, Esq. 

Nathaniel A. Work, Esq. 

Trial Attorneys 

DLA Troop Support 

Philadelphia, PA 

ORDER PURSUANT TO BOARD RULE l(a)(5) 

DIRECTING CONTRACTING OFFICER TO ISSUE DECISION 

Advanced Technology International d/b/a SCRA Applied R&D petitions the 

Board to issue an Order pursuant to Board Rule l(a)(5) directing the contracting 

officer to issue a decision on its 19 June 2014 claim. The Defense Logistics Agency 

Troop Support, a field activity of the Defense Logistics Agency, advises that the 

contracting officer will issue a decision on the contractor's claim by 22 January 2015. 

The contractor does not object to that date. 

Accordingly, the Board hereby directs the contracting officer to issue a decision 

on the contractor's claim by 22 January 2015. 

This Order completes all necessary action by the Board. If the contracting 

officer fails to comply with this Order, such failure will be deemed a decision by the 
contracting officer denying the claim, and the contractor may appeal to this Board or 

sue in the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Contract Disputes 

Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7103(f)(5), 7104. 

Dated: 7 January 2015 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

~~- Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

~ !~ - I . 

.. 

DIANA~ :· DICKINSON 

"" ~~ Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order Pursuant to Rule l(a)(5) 

of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59698-952, Petition 

of Advanced Technology International d/b/a SCRA Applied R&D, rendered in 

conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Served: June 23, 2010 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

'*'*a5f»' WASHINGTON, D.C. 

MOKULELE FLIGHT SERVICE, INC. 

NOTICE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADE NAME 

On May 25, 2010, Mokulele Flight Service, Inc. ("Mokulele"), d^/a Mokulele Air d^/a Mokulele 

Airlines d/b/a Mokulele Express, a U.S. certificated air carrier,^ requested that the Department 

register the trade name "golMokulele" for use in certain of its air transportation operations. 

Part 215 (14 CFR Part 215) of the Department's regulations provides that any air carrier wishing to 

use an alternative trade name must first register that name with the Department. The rule further 

states that the Department may register such trade name after the air carrier gives notification to 

similarly named air carriers of the proposed use of the trade name. Mokulele states that Mesa 

Airlines, Inc. ("Mesa"), is aware of and concurs with the trade name registration.^ In this case, we 

identified two similarly named air carriers, GoJet Airlines, LLC, d/b/a United Express ("GoJef'), 

and Helitrans, Co., Inc. d^/a GO Helitrans ("Helitrans"), and directed Mokulele to notify each air 

carrier of its proposed use of the trade name "golMokulele." On June 9, 2010, Mokulele provided 

evidence that it had complied with our request. 

Since Mokulele has complied with the requirements of Part 215, we acknowledge the registration 

of the trade name "golMokulele" by Mokulele for use in certain of its operations. 

Dated at Washington, D.C, June 23, 2010. 

TODD M. HOMAN 

Director 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at 

http://www. regulations.gov 

1 5ee Order 2006-12-19 

^ Mesa has previously registered and continues to use the trade name "golMokulele" in certain of its operations. 

Mokulele acknowledges that the aircraft to be used by Mokulele in operating service on behalf of Mesa will clearly 

indicate that Mokulele is the operating air carrier. Mokulele fiirther states that Mesa will make the required 

disclosures regarding the identity of the operating carrier in accordance with the provisions of 14 C.F.R. Part 257. 
Attachment A 

SERVICE LIST FOR 

MOKULELE FLIGHT SERVICE, INC. 

BRIAN S GILLMAN 

VICE PRESIDENT & GENERAL COUNSEL 

MESA AIR GROUP INC 

410 N. 44TH STREET SUITE 700 

PHOENIX AZ 85008 

CLAY MORITZ RTS-42 

OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION 

DOT/RSPA/BTS E-36 

1200 NEW JERSEY AVENUE SE 

WASHINGTON DC 20590 

PETER LYNCH FAA 

ASST CHIEF COUNSEL 

FOR ENFORCEMENT AGC-300 

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW 

WASHINGTON DC 20591 

BERNARD STANKUS RTS-42 

OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION 

DOT/RSPA/BTS E-36 

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE 

WASHINGTON DC 20590 

MR DAVID LUSK 

POI FOR MOKULELE FLIGHT SERVICE INC 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

HONOLULU FSDO 

135 NAKOLO PLACE 

HONOLULU HI 96819
§ 3432.2 Availability. ( a ) The authorized officer may modify the lease to include all or part of the lands applied for if he determines that: ( 1 ) The modification serves the interests of the United States;
( 2 ) there is no competitive interest in the lands or deposits; and
( 3 ) the additional lands or deposits cannot be developed as part of another potential or existing independent operation.
( b ) Coal deposits underlying land the surface of which is held by a qualified surface owner, and which would be mined by other than underground mining techniques, may not be added to a lease by modification.
( c ) The lands applied for shall be added to the existing lease without competitive bidding, but the United States shall receive the fair market value of the lease of the added lands, either by cash payment or adjustment of the royalty applicable to the lands added to the lease by the modification.