alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,547

Ex parte JESSE CHADDOCK, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W04-01705-K(A) IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT

NO. 4 FROM DALLAS COUNTY

KELLER, P.J., filed a concurring opinion.

The ramification of the position taken by the State and by the dissenting opinion would be

that the legislature could abrogate the double-jeopardy protection against successive prosecutions. 

If taken to its logical conclusion, their view would permit the legislature to create a dozen murder

offenses with identical elements and allow a person to be successively prosecuted for each one. Or

the legislature could authorize successive prosecutions for any lesser-included offense of an earlier

charged offense. Even an acquittal in an earlier prosecution could be rendered meaningless, because

the legislature could define offenses as not the same in a way that would effectively abolish any rules

of claim or issue preclusion.

This view simply cannot be right. The Double JeopardyClause has been construed to reach
CHADDOCK CONCURRENCE — 2

many situations, but at the core of its protections is the protection against successive prosecutions

for the same offense. The government cannot be allowed to re-file its charges again and again

simply because the earlier prosecution did not achieve the results the government desired. I do not

believe that the protection against successive prosecutions can be abolished through legislative fiat.1

With these comments, I join the opinion that announces the judgment of the Court. 

Filed: June 27, 2012

Publish

And neither, I think, does Justice Scalia, who authored the portion of Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 1

(1993), upon which the State and the dissenting opinion rely. Justice Scalia’s view is that the Double

Jeopardy Clause does not contain a “multiple punishments” component, and that multiplepunishment issues should instead be considered under the Due Process Clause. See Dep’t of

Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767, 802-03 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“The difficulty of

applying Halper’s analysis to Montana’s Dangerous Drug Tax has prompted me to focus on the

antecedent question whether there is a multiple-punishments component of the Double Jeopardy

Clause. As indicated above, I have concluded . . . that there is not. Instead, the Due Process Clause

keeps punishment within the bounds established by the legislature . . .[Halper] produces results too

strange for judges to endure, and regularly demands judgments of the most problematic sort.”). 

Under that view, Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (1983), would be removed from the doublejeopardy discussion because it was a multiple-punishments case. And once it is out of the picture,

along with its holding that legislatures may authorize multiple punishments for offenses that are the

same under Blockburger, all that is left is Blockburger as the sole criterion for ascertaining a doublejeopardy violation. See Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. at 800 (Scalia, J., dissenting). We should not read

too much into the cited statement in Dixon.
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 17 (Thursday, January 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7423-7424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01568]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

OMB Final Sequestration Report to the President and Congress for 
Fiscal Year 2021

AGENCY: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget.

[[Page 7424]]

ACTION: Notice of availability of the OMB Final Sequestration Report to 
the President and Congress for FY 2021.

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

SUMMARY: OMB is issuing the OMB Final Sequestration Report to the 
President and Congress for Fiscal Year 2021 to report on status of 2021 
discretionary caps and compliance of enacted 2021 discretionary 
appropriations legislation with those caps.

DATES: January 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The OMB Sequestration Reports to the President and Congress 
are available on-line on the OMB home page at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sequestration-reports-orders/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Tobasko, 6202 New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Email address: 
[email protected], telephone number: (202) 395-5745, FAX number: 
(202) 395-4768. Because of delays in the receipt of regular mail 
related to security screening, respondents are encouraged to use 
electronic communications.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 254 of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 requires the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) to issue a Final Sequestration Report 15 calendar days 
after the end of a congressional session. This report meets that 
requirement and finds that, for fiscal year 2021, enacted 
appropriations are at or below the defense and non-defense caps after 
accounting for cap adjustments. As a result, a sequestration of 
discretionary budget authority is not required in 2021.

Russell T. Vought,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2021-01568 Filed 1-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
```
#### Louvie Realty Corporation, Appellant, v. Dworman Realty and Construction Co. Inc., Respondent.

The aggregate amount of all damages which, in our view, might under any circumstances be proved would not exceed the $35,000, which has already been paid on account and retained by plaintiff. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
236.204 Disclosure of the magnitude of construction projects. Additional price ranges are— ( i ) Between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000; ( ii ) Between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000;
( iii ) Between $100,000,000 and $250,000,000;
( iv ) Between $250,000,000 and $500,000,000; and
( v ) Over $500,000,000.
[61 FR 7749, Feb. 29, 1996]
#### James Talcott, Inc., v. Winco Sales Corporation.

Application granted. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
1437.7002 Appraisal standards. ( a ) All real property appraisals for condemnation purposes shall be consistent with requirements of the Interagency Land Acquisition Conference publication “Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions” published by the Government Printing Office and available at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov .*
( b ) The standards in paragraph (a) of this section shall be made a part of all solicitations and resulting contracts for real property appraisal services procured for condemnation purposes.
Exhibit - 10 ii



                           Reimbursement Agreements


The Scott James Fund will reimburse officers and directors not affiliated with
the Investment Adviser to compensate for travel expenses associated with
performance of their duties.  As the Fund grows in total assets, the  Board of
Directors may place them on salaries commensurate with their duties.

The Fund has no  plans to  compensate officers, employes and directors  who  are
affiliated with the Investment Adviser  except indirectly through payment of the
management fee.




























                                     - 1 -

The Investment Company Act File Number for the Fund is #811-909
- '-- '- 

### -------------- -.-



### Devany, Dennis (OST)

From: corky!. 1 @netzero.net Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 4:04 PM Devany, Oennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) Subject: Cape Air V. Colgan To:

Sirs,

Once again our illustrious Clinton County legislature does no speak for the people they serve. I'm not sure what wisdom they were using to decide on ColganAir. Cape Air has done an excellentjob ofkeeping schedules

even when onlyone ortwo passengers were booked on a flight. Ifthe ideathat biggerplanes will bring more passengers is true why don't we have a carrier with 747s come here.

Cape Air gives good service at a descent price. Scheduling is fairly easy with three ormore flights a day. Their safety record is excellent and I don't know anyone who is interested inhaving a stewardess for a flightto Boston.

Colgan Air will cutthe number offlights andcharge more. How will this benefit the flying public here? I personally don'tbelieve Colgan will run a flight with one ortwo passengers thereby decreasing the chances of making connecting flights. 

### Ifthere are fewer flights that are more expensive I for one will drive to BTV (Burlington, VT) to fly. The costofthe Ferry across the lake is far cheaper than the costofa flight from PBG and it is only a45 minute drive.

A final thought, I never want to fly on a carrier whose pilots think that the way to break a stall is to pull back

onthe yoke. Two pilots and a stewardess are no good to anyoneifthey don'tknowhow to fly. Colgan's pilots (so called) evidently did not learn anything from their earlytraining as students. '

I hope that you will do some research into this and make the right decision for the good ofthe flying public in this area.

Thank you for your time. Respectfully, HenryLindberg CFI, AGI Plattsburgh, NY

.. 1
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 167 

Relating to the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the 

relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2017 

Mr. HELLER (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. RUBIO, and Mr. CRUZ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Relating to the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of 

Israel and the relocation of the United States Embassy 

to Jerusalem. 

Whereas each sovereign nation, under international law and 

custom, may designate its own capital; 

Whereas, since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel; 

Whereas the city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel’s President, Parliament, Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions; 

Whereas the city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism and is also considered a holy city by members of 

other religious faiths; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 167 IS 

Whereas Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which 

the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected as they have been by Israel since 1967; 

Whereas, this year, we commemorate the 50th anniversary of 

the reunification of Jerusalem and reaffirm the congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city; 

Whereas every citizen of Israel should have the right to reside 

anywhere in the undivided city of Jerusalem; 

Whereas the President and the Secretary of State should 

publicly affirm as a matter of United States policy that 

Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of the State 

of Israel; 

Whereas the President should immediately implement the 

provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public 

Law 104–45) and begin the process of relocating the 

United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; 

Whereas United States officials should refrain from any actions that contradict United States law on this subject; 

and 

Whereas any official document of the United States Government which lists countries and their capital cities should 

identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) it should be the policy of the United States 

3 to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of 

4 the State of Israel both de jure and de facto; and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 167 IS 

1 (2) the United States Embassy should be relo2 cated to Jerusalem. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### 252.241-7000 Superseding contract.

As prescribed in 241.501-70(a), use the following clause:

# Superseding Contract (DEC 1991)

This contract supersedes contract No. ______, dated ____ which provided similar services. Any capital credits accrued to the Government, any remaining credits due to the Government under the connection charge, or any termination liability are transferred to this contract, as follows:

# Capital Credits

(List years and accrued credits by year and separate delivery points.)

# Outstanding Connection Charge Credits

(List by month and year the amount credited and show the remaining amount of outstanding credits due the Government.)

# Termination Liability Charges

(List by month and year the amount of monthly facility cost recovered and show the remaining amount of facility cost to be recovered.)

(End of clause)

[56 FR 36479, July 31, 1991, as amended at 63 FR 11549, Mar. 9, 1998]
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Cagle’s, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended October 2, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Mark M. HamIV, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  Mark M. Ham IV                 |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Mark  M. Ham IV                     |   |
| Executive  Vice President and Chief |   |
| Financial Officer                   |   |
| (Principal  Accounting Officer)     |   |
| Date:  November 12, 2010  |   |

 

1

----
----

----

| (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/      Matthew      K.      Rose             |   |  /s/     Thomas N.      Hund           |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Matthew      K. Rose                                                                                                                           |   | Thomas      N. Hund                                                                                               |   |
| Chairman,      President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                           |   | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                                         |   |

Form10-Q

----

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NEW PARADIGM ENTERPRISES, INC., )

d/b/a Q101, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

Vs. ) Case No. 12 cv 5160

)

MERLIN MEDIA LLC, ) Judge Milton Shadur

) Mag. Judge Michael T. 

Mason

Defendant. )

MERLIN MEDIA, LLC, )

)

Counter-Plaintiff, )

)

Vs. )

)

NEW PARADIGM ENTERPRISES, INC. )

)

Counter-Defendant. )

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), it is hereby stipulated and agreed by 

and between New Paradigm Enterprises, Inc. and Merlin Media, LLC, through their 

respective attorneys, that this lawsuit (including the claim and counterclaim) shall be 

dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, all matters in controversy for which the action 

was brought have been fully settled, compromised, and resolved. The parties agree to 

bear their own attorney’s fees and costs.

Case: 1:12-cv-05160 Document #: 37 Filed: 05/01/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:222
Dated: April 30, 2013

Respectfully Submitted,

MERLIN MEDIA, LLC

Respectfully Submitted,

NEW PARADIGM ENTERPRISES, INC.

By: /s/ Stephen J. Rosenfeld

One of its attorneys

Steven P. Mandell

Stephen J. Rosenfeld 

Natalie A. Harris

MANDELL MENKES LLC

One North Franklin, Suite 3600

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(Tel): (312) 251-1000

(Fax): (312) 251-1010

Attorneys for Defendant / Counter-Plaintiff 

Merlin Media LLC

By: /s/ Mason Cole

One of its attorneys

Mason Cole

Tiffani Siegel

Cole Sadkin, LLC

Willis Tower

233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8400, 

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Office: (312) 857-3795

Attorneys for Plaintiff / CounterDefendant New Paradigm Enterprises, 

Inc.

Case: 1:12-cv-05160 Document #: 37 Filed: 05/01/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:222
UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT

W ELLS FAR GO & C OM PANY; W ELLS FAR GO INSUR

A NC E SER

VIC ES USA, INC ., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. AB D INSUR

ANC E & FINANC IAL SER VIC ES, INC ., FKA Insura nc e Le a de rship Ne twork, Inc .; KUR T DE GR OSZ; B R IAN HETHERINGTON, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-15625 D.C . No. 4:12-c v-03856-PJH Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , Oakla nd
ORDER

B e fore : HAW KINS, GOULD, a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s . Appe lle e ’ s Pe tition for R e he aring is DENIED. The full c ourt ha s be e n a dvise d of the Pe tition for R e he aring En B a n c and no judge of the c ourt ha s re que ste d a vote on the Pe tition for R e he aring En B anc . Fe d. R . App. P. 35. Appe lle e ’ s Pe tition for R e he aring En B anc is a lso DENIED. The m e m orandum

disposition file d on De c e m be r 20, 2013, is AM ENDED
a s follows. The se c ond to la st pa

ra gra ph sta te s: W e a l so note that a lthough the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion by

om itting c onside ra tion of thefa lse a ffilia tion c l a im 

# FIL ED

FEB 06 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALSbe c a

use it wa s not prope rly

ra ise d be low, we se e no re a s on why that c la im c annot be ra ise d on re m and a nd the re fore hold tha

t W e lls Fa rgo c an a ddre s s a

ny fa lse a ffilia

tion c l a im s it ha s in furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this m

e m orandum

disposition. The se c ond to la st pa

ra gra ph is de le te d in its e ntire ty and re pla c e d with the following la

ngua ge : W e a l so note that a lthough the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion by

om itting c onside ra tion of thefa lse a ffilia tion c l a im be c a use it wa s not prope rly

ra ise d be low, we se e no re a s on why that c la im c annot be ra ise d on re m and a nd the re fore hold tha

t W e lls Fa rgo c an a ddre s s a

ny fa lse a ffilia

tion c l a im s it ha s in furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this m

e m orandum

disposition. W e furthe r note tha t the distric t c ourt de t e rm i ne d tha t W e lls Fa

rgo fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t it would like ly

suffe r irre pa

ra ble ha rm if a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion did not issue . In light of our re c e nt de c ision in He rb Re e d Ente rprise s, LLC v . Florida Enter tainme nt Manage me nt, Inc

. , 736 F.3d 1239 (9th C ir. 2013), we de c line to a ddre ss this issue . B e c a use ne ithe r the distric t c ourt nor the pa

rtie s ha d the be ne fit of Re e d , the distric t c ourt should re visit theissue of irre pa ra ble ha rm on re m and. Se e id. a t 1250 (" Evide nc e of loss of c ontrol ove r busine ss re puta tion a nd da m a ge to goodwill c ould c onstitute irre pa ra ble ha rm ." ). No furthe r pe titions for re he aring or re he aring e n ba nc will be
a c c e pte d
. IT IS SO O RDE R E D.
#### DENIKE, Respondent, v. DENIKE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 2, 1906.)

Action by Abraham Denike against Charles W. Denike.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with costs, unless the appellant pay $10 costs and cause the printed papers on appeal to be served within 10 days. On compliance with these conditions, the motion is denied, without costs.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Alan Vituli, Chief Executive Officer of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 4, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ ALAN VITULI                                  
|Alan Vituli                                      
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

May 12, 2010