alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAMAR PINK
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 323

[ May 20, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Ernest Kollra, Jr.

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 03

- 20542 CF10C

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ash ley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and MaryEllen M. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY
, D AMOORGIAN and C IKLIN
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   6-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          JUN-30-1997
[PERIOD-END]                               DEC-31-1996
[CASH]                                           1,823
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                   18,833
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                    617,134
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                               638,047
[PP&E]                                         231,530
[DEPRECIATION]                                 231,206
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                 644,829
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                          885,300
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                        97,014
[OTHER-SE]                                   (337,485)
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                   644,829
[SALES]                                        198,004
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                               198,004
[CGS]                                          167,984
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                  167,984
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                              14,929
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                 15,091
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                             15,091
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                    15,091
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                     0.02
[EPS-DILUTED]                                     0.02
</TABLE>
Finding of No Significant Impact 

for 

Importation of Wooden Handicrafts from 

China into the United States 

February 2011 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), has 

prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that analyzes potential environmental consequences of 

allowing the importation of wooden handicrafts from China into the United States. The EA, incorporated 

by reference in this document, is available from: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Commodity Import Analysis and Operation 

4700 River Road, Unit 133 

Riverdale, MD 2073 7- 1236 

The EA analyzed alternatives of (I) no action in which the current regulations will remain unchanged 

prohibiting the importation of wooden handicrafts from China (no action alternative), and (2) the regulation 

under this rulemaking (preferred alternative). This rulemaking was preferred because it would not likely 

result in the introduction of plant pests associated with wooden handicrafts imported into the United States 

from China. Further, the preferred alternative will support the agency's efforts, in accordance with 

international trade agreements, to remove barriers to trade in the event that such barriers are found by 

sci~ntific analysis to be unnecessary. The mitigative measures serve to negate or reduce the potential 

environmental consequences of the preferred alternative. 

APHIS has determined that there would be no significant impact to the human environment from the 

implementation of the preferred alternative. APHIS' Finding ofNo Significant Impact for this program was 

based upon the expected limited environmental consequences, as analyzed in the EA. In addition, APHIS 

anticipates no impacts to threatened or endangered species or their habitats from this regulatory action. 

I find that the preferred program poses no disproportionate adverse effects to minority and low-income 

populations and the actions undertaken for this program are entirely consistent with the principles of 

"environmental justice," as expressed in Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." Likewise, I find that the 

preferred program poses no disproportionate adverse effects to children and the actions undertaken for this 

program comply with the policy of Executive Order 13045, "Protection of Children From Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks." 

Lastly, because I have not found evidence of significant environmental impact associated with this program, 

I further find that an environmental impact statement does not need to be prepared and that this program 

may be implemented. 

Name 

Title A- ~Cc... ~ ~c:., \;>,c ~c.. \vc, 9 \\.P 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Agency 

Date
### §§751 to 766. Repealed. Feb. 10, 1936, ch. 42, 49 Stat. 1106

Sections, act June 28, 1934, ch. 866, §§1–16, 48 Stat. 1275–1280, as amended by act Aug. 24, 1935, ch. 641, §§44 to 54, 49 Stat. 778 to 780, related to marketing and taxation of tobacco.

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

#### Collection of Unpaid Taxes

Act Mar. 2, 1936, ch. 112, 49 Stat. 1155, amending act Feb. 10, 1936, ch. 42, 49 Stat. 1106, provided that no tax, civil penalty, or interest which accrued under any provision of law repealed by said act Feb. 10, 1936, and which was uncollected on date of enactment of said act Feb. 10, 1936, was to be collected; and all liens for taxes, civil penalties, or interest arising out of taxes under such provisions of law were canceled and released.

#### Appropriations for Refunds and Payments of Processing and Related Taxes and Limitations Thereon

Acts June 25, 1938, ch. 681, 52 Stat. 1150; May 6, 1939, ch. 115, §1, 53 Stat. 661, 662; Feb. 12, 1940, ch. 28, §1, 54 Stat. 36; Mar. 25, 1940, ch. 71, title I, 54 Stat. 61; May 31, 1941, ch. 156, title I, §1, 55 Stat. 219; Mar. 10, 1942, ch. 178, title I, §1, 56 Stat. 156; June 30, 1943, ch. 179, title I, 57 Stat. 257; Apr. 22, 1944, ch. 175, title I, §1, 58 Stat. 201; Apr. 24, 1945, ch. 92, title I, 59 Stat. 62; July 20, 1946, ch. 588, title I, 60 Stat. 574.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29294]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4480-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]


New York; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of New York (FEMA-4480-DR), dated March 20, 2020, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on December 13, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, David Maurstad, 
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for 
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Thomas Von Essen as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-29294 Filed 1-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
* 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. 00-10161 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KEVIN LERAY HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:99-CR-111-6-P

-------------------- December 14, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Attorney Alexander Calhoun was appointed to represent Kevin Henderson, and he has now moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Henderson received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, and has filed a response which discusses a difference between the amount of drugs specified in his indictment and the amount specified in sentencing calculations. Henderson’s argument is frivolous because our recent decisions explain that a fact used in sentencing calculationsNo. 00-10161 -2- which does not increase a penalty beyond the statutory maximum need not be alleged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Keith , __ F.3d __, 2000 WL 1532802 (5th Cir. 2000). In this case, the sentence Henderson received was increased because of the greater amount of drugs, but it was still less than the statutory maximum. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no other non-frivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 23.1







                         Consent of Independent Auditors




The Board of Directors and Shareholders
UQM Technologies, Inc.:

Our report dated May 18, 2001, states that we did not audit the financial
statements of Taiwan UQM Electric Co., Ltd. (a 38.25% owned investee company).
The financial statements of Taiwan UQM Electric Co, Ltd. were audited by other
auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it
relates to the amounts included for Taiwan UQM Electric, Co., Ltd. for the year
ended March 31, 1999 is based solely on the report of the other auditors.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Forms S-8 (Nos. 33-23113, 33-24071, 33-34612, 33-35055, 33-34613, 33-41325,
33-64852, 33-47454, 33-81430 and 33-92288) and in the registration statements on
Forms S-3 (Nos. 33-6116, 33-63399, 333-01919, 333-13883, 333-44597, 333-23843,
33-50393, 333-52861, 333-67313 and 333-78525) of UQM Technologies, Inc. of our
report dated May 18, 2001 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of UQM
Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2001 and 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and
comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended March 31, 2001, which report appears in the March 31,
2001 Annual Report on Form-K of UQM Technologies, Inc.


                                                                  /s/KPMG LLP
                                                                     KPMG LLP
AGREEMENT
      

     

    This
      Agreement dated the 1st
      day of
      December 2005 by and between Clayton Dunning and  Company,
      Inc., a domestic corporation with offices at 40 Wall Street, 315t
      Floor,
      New York, New York 10005 hereinafter referred to as "The Assignor," and Mercer
      Asset Management Company, Inc., a New York with offices at 45 Broadway,
      30lh
      Floor,
      New York, New York 10006, hereinafter referred to as "The Assignee."


     

    WHEREAS
      The
      Assignor is a tenant at 40 Wall Street, 31st Floor,
      New York, New York; and 

     

    WHEREAS
      The
      Assignor executed a lease with 40 Wall Street, LLC, a limited liability company,
      with office at 725 5th
      Avenue,
      New York, New York 10022, dated the 23rd
      day of
      December  2004
      (the
      "Lease"); and  .
      

     

    WHEREAS A
      copy of
      the Lease is annexed hereto and made a part thereof; and 

     

    WHEREAS
      Pursuant
      to the terms of the Lease, the Assignor has as security with the landlord
      $162,197; and 

     

    WHEREAS
      The
      Assignor does not desire to continue to lease its space on the 31st
      Floor of
      40 Wall Street, New York, New York; and  

     

    WHEREAS
      The
      Assignee wishes to lease the space on the 31st Floor
      of
      40 Wall Street, New York, New York where the Assignor currently resides; and
      

     

    NOW
      THEREFORE IT IS AGREED: 

     

    1.
      The
      Assignor hereby assigns the Lease to the Assignee; 

     

    2.
      The
      Assignee, upon the execution of this agreement and upon the consent of the
      owner
      of the building, does hereby assume and undertake to perform all liabilities
      enumerated on the Lease; 

     

    3.
      The
      Assignor does hereby assign to the Assignee all of its interest in the security
      that it posted with 40 Wall Street, LLC, a limited liability company, pursuant
      to the terms of the Lease; 

     

    4.
      At the
      termination of the Lease, the Assignee is at liberty to renew the Lease or
      vacate the premises pursuant to the terms to the Lease; 

     

    5.
      The
      Assignor has no right to re-enter the premises at the expiration of the
      Lease;

     

    6.
      This
      assignment is subject to the acknowledgement and consent of 40 Wall Street,
      LLC,
      that the Lease is valid, subsistence, and that there are no defaults therein,
      and the security deposits being held, as indicated herein, are still intact;
      

    


    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    7.
      40
      Wall Street, LLC, pursuant to the Lease will not release the Assignor from
      its
      liability under the terms of this lease; 

     

    IN
      WITNESS THEREOF dated 1st
      day of
      December 2005.
#### 1352.271-80 Title.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1371.111, insert the following clause:

# Title (APR 2010)

(a) Title to all materials and equipment acquired, produced for, or allocated to the performance of this contract and incorporated in or placed on the vessel or any part thereof, shall vest in the Government.

(b) The contractor shall assume, without limitation, the risk of loss for any contractor-furnished materials and equipment until final acceptance by the Government of work performed under the contract.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
#### § 89.2 Applicability.

This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the DoD, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD.
Fiscal Year 2019 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - MARYLAND

No data No data No data

LEA ID District FY 2019 Title I Allocation

2400030 Allegany County Public Schools 3,642,388

2400060 Anne Arundel County Public Schools 14,370,367

2400090 Baltimore City Public Schools 61,894,358

2400120 Baltimore County Public Schools 29,025,737

2400150 Calvert County Public Schools 1,612,547

2400180 Caroline County Public Schools 1,801,502

2400210 Carroll County Public Schools 2,151,411

2400240 Cecil County Public Schools 3,558,541

2400270 Charles County Public Schools 4,431,007

2400300 Dorchester County Public Schools 2,368,106

2400330 Frederick County Public Schools 5,316,354

2400360 Garrett County Public Schools 1,247,988

2400390 Harford County Public Schools 6,000,126

2400420 Howard County Public Schools 6,399,323

2400450 Kent County Public Schools 757,269

2400480 Montgomery County Public Schools 36,786,075

2400510 Prince George's County Public Schools 36,379,194

2400540 Queen Annes County Public Schools 932,491

2400570 Somerset County Public Schools 1,952,516

2400600 St. Marys County Public Schools 3,796,640

2400630 Talbot County Public Schools 1,097,827

2400660 Washington County Public Schools 7,933,723

2400690 Wicomico County Public Schools 6,295,147

2400720 Worcester County Public Schools 1,879,072

2499999 PART D SUBPART 2 479,725

No data No data No data

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 7 percent of their allocations for school improvement. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.

X0AT
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Eugene Cheeks, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Although we agree that the trial court erred in its charge on the issue of intent (see *People v O’Neill,*59 AD2d 540, 542) and that subsequent to its initial proper charge on the defense of justification (Penal Law, § 35.15, subd 2, par [a]) the court’s further statements on that issue were misleading, neither of those points was preserved for review *(People v Fonseca,*36 NY2d 133; CPL 470.05). Additionally, while the court’s determination to charge a lesser degree of assault was not made until after defendant’s summation (see *People v Graham,*57 AD2d 478, 481, affd 44 NY2d 768), the error thus committed was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). The theory of the defense was justification and it may not be *1022said, on the facts of this case, that the defendant was denied his right to an effective summation *(People v Vicaretti,*54 AD2d 236, 250; see, also, *People v Chapman,*60 AD2d 584). In view of the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, we are not moved to reverse in the interests of justice (see *People v Jones,*32 AD2d 1069, 1070, affd 27 NY2d 501). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court—assault, first degree.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.
|                          |   |                        |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                          |   |                        |   |
| Date:  November 15, 2010 |   | /s/ Barry B. Goldstein |   |
|                          |   | Barry B. Goldstein          |   |
|                          |   | Chief Executive Officer     |   |
|                          |   |                        |   |
|                          |   |                        |   |
|                          |   |                        |   |
|                          |   | /s/ Victor Brodsky          |   |
|                          |   | Victor Brodsky              |   |
|                          |   | Chief Financial Officer     |   |
#### In the Matter of M. J. D. Rest., Inc., Petitioner, v State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the respondent’s determination, dated June 8, 1978, which, after a hearing, suspended petitioner’s special on-premises liquor license for 30 days and imposed a $1,000 bond claim. Determination confirmed and petition dismissed on the merits, with costs. There was substantial evidence to support the determination and, under the circumstances of this case, the penalty was not excessive (see *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). Hopkins, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
14.202-5 Descriptive literature. ( a ) *Policy.* Contracting officers must not require bidders to furnish descriptive literature unless it is needed before award to determine whether the products offered meet the specification and to establish exactly what the bidder proposes to furnish.
( b ) *Justification.* The contracting officer must document in the contract file the reasons why product acceptability cannot be determined without the submission of descriptive literature, except when the contract specifications require submission.
( c ) *Requirements of invitation for bids.* ( 1 ) The invitation must clearly state— ( i ) What descriptive literature the bidders must furnish;
( ii ) The purpose for requiring the literature;
( iii ) The extent of its consideration in the evaluation of bids; and
( iv ) The rules that will apply if a bidder fails to furnish the literature before bid opening or if the literature provided does not comply with the requirements of the invitation.
( 2 ) If bidders must furnish descriptive literature, see 14.201-6(p).
( d ) *Waiver of requirement for descriptive literature.* ( 1 ) The contracting officer may waive the requirement for descriptive literature if— ( i ) The bidder states in the bid that the product being offered is the same as a product previously or currently being furnished to the contracting activity; and
( ii ) The contracting officer determines that the product offered by the bidder complies with the specification requirements of the current invitation for bids. When the contracting officer waives the requirement, see 14.201-6(p)(2).
( 2 ) When descriptive literature is not necessary and a waiver of literature requirements of a specification has been authorized, the contracting officer must include a statement in the invitation that, despite the requirements of the specifications, descriptive literature will not be required.
( 3 ) If the solicitation provides for a waiver, a bidder may submit a bid on the basis of either the descriptive literature furnished with the bid or a previously furnished product. If the bid is submitted on one basis, the bidder may not have it considered on the other basis after bids are opened.
( e ) *Unsolicited descriptive literature.* If descriptive literature is furnished when it is not required by the invitation for bids, the procedures set forth in 14.202-4(f) must be followed.
[67 FR 13055, Mar. 20, 2002]