alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 10, 2021

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21

- 0705 Lower Tribunal No. F01

- 34564A

________________ 

### Michael Lo C ascio , 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, Marlene Fernandez

- Karavetsos , Judge. Michael Lo C ascio , in prop er person. Ashley Moody , Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY and BOKOR , JJ. PER CURIAM.2 Michael Lo C ascio appeals the denial of a successive motion for post

convic tion relief. Including direct appeal, this is the third time he has raised some of these issues , and at least the second time he has raised the rest

. Mr. Lo C ascio claims newly discovered evidence warrants an evidentiary hearing. However, Mr. Lo C ascio has previously presented these issues , along with the purported relevant evidence , before both the trial court and t his C ourt. Each time, t his C ourt found no merit to the claims. See Lo C ascio v. State , No. 3D12

- 574 , 2012 WL 1109484 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 4, 2 012) ; see also Lo C ascio v. State , 76 So. 3d 304 ( Fla. 3d DCA 2011 )

. Affirmed.
Contact Us

#   Clean Watersheds Needs Survey

          -                  Assessing America's Clean Water Infrastructure Needs      
EPA’s Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) is an assessment of existing clean water infrastructure and the need for future investment to address the water quality objectives of the Clean Water Act over the next 20 years.
 

### Announcements:

                  - The CWNS was recently featured in the  July 2024 Water Environment and Technology (WET) monthly magazine .
                  - The first  Federal Register Notice  announcing to the public EPA’s intent to collect data for the next CWNS was posted. The CWNS is a recurring assessment and requires periodic renewal of its Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB. EPA solicited public comments on the draft ICR for 60 days. The public comment period closed on May 10, 2024.

            -  About the CWNS
Learn about the purpose and history of the needs survey. Find definitions of the needs categories.
Learn about the CWNS 
            -  2022 CWNS Report
Explore the 2022 Report to Congress, Data Dashboard, and Scope and Methods.
Explore Latest Results 
            -  Past CWNS Reports
Access prior Reports to Congress and data for 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012.
Compare Past Surveys 

##         2022 CWNS Results          

Contact Us
#### 970.2704 Rights in data.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Delores Fernandez, Appellant.

[775 NYS2d 913]

*887Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered May 8, 2003, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant was serving five years’ probation for her 2001 conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree when she was charged with violating the terms of her probation by missing scheduled appointments with her probation officer, failing to comply with treatment recommendations and neglecting to make any effort to satisfy restitution. Defendant pleaded guilty to violating the terms of her probation. Although sentencing was suspended in order to give defendant another chance to succeed on probationary status, defendant’s probation was ultimately revoked and she was sentenced to a prison term of 11⁄3 to 4 years.

Inasmuch as there was no request for an updated presentence investigation report, defendant’s contention that County Court erred in failing to order a second presentence investigation report is not preserved for our review *(see People v Olivett,*301 AD2d 968, 969 [2003]; *People v Moon,*225 AD2d 826, 827-828 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 939 [1996]). Were we to consider the issue, we would find, after a review of the record, that defendant and her probation officer apprised the court of all relevant factors regarding defendant’s conduct in the intervening months since her initial sentence of probation (see *People v Wingenter,*261 AD2d 716, 717 [1999]; *People v Travers,*234 AD2d 808 [1996]). Furthermore, given defendant’s inability to abide by the terms of probation, we reject defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive (see *People v Olivett, supra*at 969) and find no extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see *People v Dolphy,*257 AD2d 681, 685 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 872 [1999]).

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### 970.2305 Workplace substance abuse programs—management and operating contracts.
Exhibit 10.42

                                 GEORGE IORDANOU
                                74 GREENWAY EAST
                             NEW HYDE PARK, NY 11040



November 6, 2003

SLS International, Inc.
3119 S. Scenic Ave.
Springfield, Mo. 65807
Attn. John Gott

Re. Consulting Services Agreement

Mr. Gott,

I, George Iordanou,, per this agreement, wish to offer my consulting services to
SLS International for a period of two years. I am involved extensively in the
Entertainment Industry and it is my intention to promote the SLS company and
it's products to our business associates and clients.

For our services I wish to be compensated 3,226 shares of Restricted common
stock of SLS International, Inc. (SITI), payable upon signing of this agreement.
Please issue my certificate in the following name:

Name  GEORGE IORDANOU                   Social Security #
    ------------------                                  ----------------------


If this agreement is approved by you and your Board of Directors I will begin my
services immediately after the receipt of the stock certificate.


Sincerely,



-----------------------
George Iordanou
#### 852.233-70 Protest Content/Alternative Dispute Resolution.

As prescribed in 833.106-70(a), insert the following provision:

# Protest Content/Alternative Dispute Resolution (SEP 2018)

(a) Any protest filed by an interested party shall—

(1) Include the name, address, fax number, email and telephone number of the protester;

(2) Identify the solicitation and/or contract number;

(3) Include an original signed by the protester or the protester's representative and at least one copy;

(4) Set forth a detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds of the protest, including a description of resulting prejudice to the protester, and provide copies of relevant documents;

(5) Specifically request a ruling of the individual upon whom the protest is served;

(6) State the form of relief requested; and

(7) Provide all information establishing the timeliness of the protest.

(b) Failure to comply with the above may result in dismissal of the protest without further consideration.

(c) Bidders/offerors and Contracting Officers are encouraged to use alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures to resolve protests at any stage in the protest process. If ADR is used, the Department of Veterans Affairs will not furnish any documentation in an ADR proceeding beyond what is allowed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

(End of provision)

[83 FR 46417, Sept. 13, 2018]
#### In re WATERMAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 27, 1906.)

In the matter of the estate of Henry Waterman, deceased.

No opinion. We are of the opinion that it was not necessary in this case to grant a new trial upon a reversal. Sections 2586 and 2587, Code Civ. Proc. The motion is denied, without costs.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Teen Drivers      

# Teen Drivers

Factsheet on teen drivers, including high-risk behaviors, recent statistics, and links to other resources.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Teen-Drivers
908.7101-6 Acquisition of fuel-efficient vehicles. ( a ) All purchases of sedans and station wagons, and certain types of light trucks as specified by GSA, are subject to the requirements of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Pub. L. 94-163, and of Executive Orders 12003 and 12375 and subsequent implementing regulations. Accordingly, the Director of Administration and the Heads of Contracting Activities will submit annually to the Director, Personal Property Policy Division, within the Headquarters procurement organization, for approval, a forecast of plans for the purchase of such vehicles during the fiscal year. Such forecast shall be submitted to the Property Executive, or designee.
( b ) Approved sedans, station wagons, and light trucks requisitioned, but not contracted for by GSA until the subsequent fiscal year, shall be included in the acquisition plan for the miles-per-gallon criteria of the year in which GSA signs the purchase contract along with the new vehicles planned for acquisition that year.
[49 FR 11945, Mar. 28, 1984; 49 FR 38950, Oct. 2, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 9104, Feb. 25, 1994; 77 FR 74386, Dec. 14, 2012]
911.602 General. ( e ) The Heads of Contracting Activities shall ensure that members of their staffs and contractors under their jurisdiction are advised of the provisions of the DPAS regulation and that the related procedures are followed to ensure adherence to the regulation throughout the industrial supply chain. Under DPAS, it is mandatory that the priority rating be extended through the industrial chain from supplier to supplier.
[52 FR 38422, Oct. 16, 1987, as amended at 59 FR 9105, Feb. 25, 1994. Redesignated at 61 FR 21976, May 13, 1996, as amended at 73 FR 10985, Feb. 29, 2008]
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: School Experiences with COVID-19: June 2022      

# Resource: School Experiences with COVID-19: June 2022

These latest findings from the School Pulse Panel (SPP) examine learning recovery, summer learning, staff vacancies, COVID-19 mitigation strategies, learning modes offered by schools, and student and staff quarantine prevalence as reported by school leaders in U.S. public schools. **Learn more.**
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER WITHDRAWING MEDIATION ORDER

Cause number: 01-18-00516-CV

Style: Holly Brooke Schaumleffel v. GS/TPRF III Houston Med. CTR., LP

Date motion filed: September 7, 2018

Type of Motion: Objection to Mediation

Party filing motion: Appellee

It is ordered that Appellee’s objection to mediation is granted. We withdraw our 

Mediation Order dated September 5, 2018.

Judge's signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 x Acting individually Q Acting for the Court

 Panel consists of 

Date: September 12, 2018

* Absent emergency or a statement that the motion is unopposed, must wait ten days before acting on motion except for 

motion to extend time to file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a).

Note: Single justice may grant or deny any request for relief properly sought by motion, except in a civil case a single justice 

should not: (1) act on a petition for an extraordinary writ or (2) dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a motion 

for rehearing. TEX. R. APP. P. 10.4(a).
#### Tri-State Sol-Aire Corporation, Appellant, v Martin Associates, Inc., Respondent.

[776 NYS2d 99]

In an action to recover for work, labor, and services performed and materials supplied, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 14, 2003, as upon renewal and *515reargument, adhered to a prior determination of the same court dated May 7, 2002, granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3).

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from so much of the order as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination must be dismissed. As a general rule, we do not consider an issue raised on a subsequent appeal that was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although we have inherent jurisdiction to do so *(see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co.,*93 NY2d 750 [1999]; *Bray v Cox,*38 NY2d 350 [1976]). Here, the plaintiff appealed from a prior order of the Supreme Court dated May 7, 2002. That appeal (App Div Docket No. 2002-05542) was dismissed by this Court on April 3, 2003, for failure to perfect in accordance with the rules of this Court. The dismissal of that appeal constituted an adjudication on the merits with respect to all issues which could have been reviewed therein, and we find no basis to review the same issues on this appeal *(see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., supra; Bray v Cox, supra).*

Furthermore, the Supreme Court, upon renewal, properly adhered to its original determination granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) based on the lack of capacity to sue. The plaintiffs proof was insufficient to establish that it did not have a legal or equitable interest in this cause of action at the time of the commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding *(see*11 USC § 541 [a] [1]; *Dynamics Corp. of Am. v Marine Midland Bank-N.Y.,*69 NY2d 191, 196-197 [1987]; *Martinez v Desai,*273 AD2d 447 [2000]; *Weitz v Lewin,*251 AD2d 402 [1998]). Accordingly, its failure to list this cause of action as an asset in its bankruptcy petition precluded it from pursuing this cause of action on its own behalf *(see 123 Cutting Co. v Topcove Assoc.,*2 AD3d 606 [2003]; *Matter of First Montauk Sec. Corp. v Chiulli,*245 AD2d 507 [1997]). Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Adams, JJ, concur.
#### Connie Smeatin, Respondent, v G. D. Searle & Co., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

— Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion for a protective order denied (see *Brooks v Hausauer,*51 AD2d 660). (Appeal from order of Wayne Supreme Court— discovery.) Present — Simons, J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Arthur Hodella, Respondent, v Chief of Police of the Town of Greenburgh et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel the appellants to pay petitioner his salary for a day on which he was absent from work, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 5, 1978, which granted the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner is a police officer in the Town of Greenburgh who received his permanent appointment in 1962. In May, 1974 he sustained a back injury during the performance of his duties and was determined to be permanently, partially disabled. Petitioner has performed sedentary light *968work at full salary since 1974, pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 3 of section 207-c of the General Municipal Law. According to appellants, petitioner has been frequently absent from work. On April 21, 1978 the appellant chief of police informed petitioner that in the event he refused to perform the work assigned to him, his salary would be discontinued. On July 27, 1978 the chief of police advised petitioner "that your pay check issued this date does not include pay for June 11, 1978 as you were absent from ordered duty due to a previously reported disability”. Petitioner commenced the instant article 78 proceeding seeking to compel the appellants to pay him for the day he was absent from work. We agree with Special Term that absent an evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 75 of the Civil Service Law, appellants could not legally dock petitioner a day’s pay. Although subdivision 3 of section 207-c of the General Municipal Law grants municipalities the right *to*discontinue the salary of partially injured police officers who refuse to perform assigned light work, this great power may not be exercised summarily where, as here, the officer has received a permanent appointment. Rather, subdivision 3 should be read in conjunction with section 75 of the Civil Service Law and the constitutional guarantees of due process, which require that petitioner, as a permanent civil service appointee, be granted an evidentiary hearing, with notice and opportunity to be heard, where removal or other disciplinary action is sought (see *Matter of Fiorella v Village of Scarsdale,*96 Mise 2d 406; cf. *Matter of Johnson v Director, Downstate Med. Center,*41 NY2d 1061, affg 52 AD2d 357). Mangano, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur
----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

| GLOBAL      FOOD TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation |                     | PROCINT      LTDA., a Chilean Limitada company |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                                                        |                     |                                           |   |   |
|                                                        |                     |                                           | By: | /s/      Ernesto Lawrence Diaz |
|                                                        |                     |                                           |   |   |
| By:                                                         |           |                                           |   |   |
|                                                        |                     |                                           | Print |   |
|                                                        |                     |                                           | Name: | Ernesto Lawrence      Diaz |
| Print                                                       |                     |                                           |   |   |
| Name:      Keith Meeks                                      |                     | Its:                                           | Illegible |
|                                                        |                     |                                           |   |   |
| Its:      President and CEO                                 |                     | By:                                            | /s/      Leonardo Bravo Mendez |
|                                                        |                     |                                           |   |   |
|                                                        |                     |                                           | Print |   |
|                                                        |                     |                                           | Name: | Leonardo Bravo Mendez |
|                                                        |                     |                                           |   |   |
|                                                        |                     |                                           | Its: | Illegible |

----

----
#### Mona Drusine v. Leon Drusine.

Motion for leave to dispense with printing granted only insofar as to dispense with the printing in the record on appeal of the minutes of the hearing before the Referee on condition that appellant serves one typewritten copy of the minutes on the attorney for respondent and files six typewritten copies of the minutes with this court simultaneously with the filing of the record on appeal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.