alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[108th Congress Public Law 321]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ321.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 1214]]

Public Law 108-321
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
        To expand the Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 
             Florida. <<NOTE: Oct. 5, 2004 -  [H.R. 3768]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Timucuan Ecological and 
Historic Preserve Boundary Revision Act of 2004.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 16 USC 698n note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Timucuan Ecological and Historic 
Preserve Boundary Revision Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF BOUNDARY OF TIMUCUAN ECOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC 
            PRESERVE, FLORIDA.

    Section 201(a) of Public Law 100-249 (16 U.S.C. 698n) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(a) Establishment.--There is hereby'' and 
        inserting the following:

    ``(a) Establishment.--
            ``(1) In general.--There is''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Modification of boundary.--
                    ``(A) In general.--In addition to the land described 
                in paragraph (1), the Preserve shall include 
                approximately 8.5 acres of land located in Nassau 
                County, Florida, as generally depicted on the map 
                entitled `Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve 
                American Beach Adjustment', numbered 006/80012 and dated 
                June 2003.
                    ``(B) Duties of secretary.--The Secretary of the 
                Interior shall--
                          ``(i) revise the boundaries of the Preserve so 
                      as to encompass the land described in subparagraph 
                      (A); and

[[Page 118 STAT. 1215]]

                          ``(ii) maintain the map described in 
                      subparagraph (A) on file and available for public 
                      inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
                      National Park Service.''.

    Approved October 5, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3768:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108-493 (Comm. on Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 108-333 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
            May 17, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 15, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JONATHAN L. OLSON *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 * Civil Action No.: 3:20-CV-4060

v. *

 *

SKANSKA USA CIVIL SOUTHEAST, *

INC. AND MTT EQUIPMENT *

SERVICE, LLP *

 *

in personam. *

 *

Defendant. *

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

COME NOW the Plaintiff and Defendant in the above referenced and 

styled cause of action and file this their joint motion for dismissal. As grounds 

state the Parties have reached a settlement of all issues. Defendant’s 

counsel is in the process of preparing settlement documents.

WHEREFORE, the premises considered the Plaintiff and Defendant 

motion this Honorable Court to dismiss with prejudice the above referenced 

and styled cause of action each party to bear their own costs.

Case 3:20-cv-04060-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 08/03/20 Page 1 of 2
DATED this 3RD day of August 2020.

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/Michael G. Huey

MICHAEL G. HUEY (HUE002) 

Attorney for the Plaintiff

Post Office Box 1806

Mobile, Florida 36633

(251) 433-6622 Telephone

(251) 433-6654 Facsimile

mghuey@hueyfirm.com

/s/Jonathan A. Tweedy

Jonathan A. Tweedy, Esq.

Melissa A. Miller, Esq.

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT

Schouest, Bamdas, Soshea & 

Benmaier, PLLC

365 Canal Street | Suite 2730

New Orleans | Louisiana | 70118

(504) 561-0323 x478 | Phone

(504) 528-9442 | Fax

jtweedy@sbsblaw.com

Case 3:20-cv-04060-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 08/03/20 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

CIM Trucking, Inc., an Illinois corporation

Metal Management Aerospace, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Metal Management Alabama, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Metal Management Arizona, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company

Metal Management Connecticut, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Metal Management Indiana, Inc., an Illinois corporation

Metal Management Jackson, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company

Metal Management Memphis, L.L.C., a Tennessee limited liability company

Metal Management Midwest, Inc., an Illinois corporation

Metal Management Mississippi, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Metal Management New Haven, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Metal Management Northeast, Inc., a New Jersey corporation

Metal Management Ohio, Inc., an Ohio corporation

Metal Management Pittsburgh, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Metal Management Proler Southwest, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Metal Management S&A Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Metal Management West Coast Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Metal Management West, Inc., a Colorado corporation

MTLM Arizona, Inc., an Arizona corporation

Naporano Iron & Metal, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Proler Southwest GP, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Proler Southwest LP, a Texas limited partnership

Reserve Iron & Metal Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership



Metal Management Nashville, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (ownership
of 50%)

Port Albany Ventures LLC., a Delaware limited liability company (ownership of
50%)

Rondout Iron & Metal Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(ownership of 50%)
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case Nos.: 3:99cr50/RV/CJK 

3:14cv276/RV/CJK

PAUL E. CLAYTON

_____________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated June 19, 2014 (doc. 224). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the Report

and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28,

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed

objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto timely filed,

I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 222) is

SUMMARILY DISMISSED, as this court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive motion absent

authorization from the Eleventh Circuit.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of July, 2014.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:99-cr-00050-RV-CJK Document 226 Filed 07/24/14 Page 1 of 1
OAR Box 1878 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

80) 11-1-9 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 11/28/2008 1:21:24 PM Sheet 80 of 145 

p.1 
A-90-19 

II I 10 

Hawley 's 

Condensed Chemical 

Dictionary 

ELEVENTH EDITION 

Revised by 

N. Irving Sax 

and 

Richard J. Lewis, Sr. 

®tfg7 

.in 

WBf bo protected by 

Popyri^ Law (TTtJe 17 U.S. Code) 

VAN NOSTRAND REINHOLD COMPANY 

N«wYork I Ms materia! may be r 

^ftwrtgwu,(na.i/u.ita* RADIAN LIBRARY 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. MC 
Copyright © 1987 by V u Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc. 

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 86-23333 

ISBN: 0-442-28097-1 

All rights reserved. Certain portions of this work copyright © 1930, 1920, 1919 by 

The Chemical Catalog Co., Inc. tnd 1981, 1977, 1971, 1966, 1956, 1950 by Van Nottrand 

Reinhold Company Inc. No put of this work covered by the copyright hereon 

may be reproduced or used in iny form or by any means—graphic, electronic, or 

m«-h.mr.i including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage 

and retrieval systems— without permission of the publisher. 

Printed in the United States of America 

Van Nostrand Reinbold Company Inc. 

US Fifth Avenue 

New York. New York 10003 

Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Limited 

Molly Millars Lane 

Wokingham. Berkshire RGll 2PY, England 

Van Nostrand Reinhold 

480 Latrobe Street 

Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia 

Macmillan of Canada 

Division of Canada Publishing Corporation 

164 Commander Boulevard 

Agincourt, Ontario MIS 3C7, Canada 

15 14 13 12 11 109 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 

Uhnryof Ctatoajlat-t>P*Mkat1e« Data 

^"nifntiTrJ rhfUK^I dictionary. 

Hawley's condensed chemical dictionary. 

Rev. ed. of: The Condensed chemical dictionary. 

10th edVrev. by Ocssner G. Hawley, 1981. 

1. Chemistry—Dictionaries. I. Hawley, Geuner 

Goodrich, 1905- II. Sax, N. Irving (Newton Irving) 

IIL Lewis. Richard J.. Sr. IV. Title. 

QD5.C5 1987 540\3'21 86-23333 

ISBN 0-442-28097.1
### IN THE COURT OFAPPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v. TAD JARED VANKIRK, Appellant. No. 68347-1-1 DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: DEC 8 - 2014 

### PER CURIAM — This case was stayed pending the Washington State Supreme Court's decision in State v. Medina. 180 Wn.2d 282, 324 P.3d 682 

### (2014). The decision in Medina rejects and controls Vankirk's arguments regarding creditfor pretrial participation inthe CCAP-enhanced program 

### (Community CenterforAlternative Programs). Accordingly, we liftthe stay and affirm. Affirmed. FOR THE COURT: 

# ]V>Vkc>/ JQ M



# tmh.

C3 V\ i CO
rsj
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30801]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0602; Airspace Docket No. 09-AEA-13]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Spencer, WV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
published in the Federal Register that establishes Class E Airspace at 
Spencer, WV. This action enhances the safety and airspace management of 
Boggs Field Airport, Spencer, WV.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 17, 2009. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual 
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support 
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. 
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5610.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published a direct final rule with request for comments 
establishing Class E Airspace at Boggs Field Airport, Spencer, WV, in 
the Federal Register on October 19, 2009 (74 FR 53407), Docket No. FAA-
2009-0602; Airspace Docket No. 09-AEA-13. The FAA uses the direct final 
rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA 
believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct 
final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were 
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written 
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received 
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on 
December 17, 2009. No adverse comments were received, and thus this 
notice confirms that effective date.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 15, 2009.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air 
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. E9-30801 Filed 12-31-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LARRY FELTON WHITE, JR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv3582-MCR-HTC

WARDEN C. MAIORANA,

CHIEF OF SECURITY KRAIG CARTER,

SERGEANT D. MILLER,

CORRECTION OFFICER T HUDSON,

CORRECTION OFFICER SLAWSON,

GEO GROUP INC,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation dated August 24, 2020 (ECF No. 25), which recommends that the 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF Docs. 13 & 20) be granted and this case

dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The parties have been 

given an opportunity to file objections. No timely objections have been filed. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, the Court has

determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-03582-MCR-HTC Document 28 Filed 09/28/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv3582-MCR-HTC

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

(1)The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF Doc. 25) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

(2) Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Docs. 13 & 20) are GRANTED, 

and the Complaint (ECF Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

(3)The Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of September, 2020.

s/M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-03582-MCR-HTC Document 28 Filed 09/28/20 Page 2 of 2
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 13, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-831 Lower Tribunal No. F10-19926

________________ 

### Eric Laverne McDade , Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa Tinkler Mendez, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Forbes v. State, 269 So. 3d 677, 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Following an evidentiary hearing, we review the denial of a motion for postconviction relief to determine whether competent, substantial evidence supports the postconviction court's findings of fact”) (citing Mosley v. State, 209 So. 3d 1248, 1262 (Fla. 2016)); Floyd v. State, 299 So. 3d 594, 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (“On review of an order denying a postconviction motion following an evidentiary hearing, we defer to the postconviction court's credibility determinations and findings of fact that are supported by competent substantial evidence.”)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LUIS ROSALES CARTAGENA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73597

Agency No. A070-460-868

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Jose Luis Rosales Cartegena, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals which dismissed

his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and

withholding of removal.

FILED

OCT 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-73597

We reject Rosales Cartegena’s claim that he is eligible for asylum based on

his membership in a particular social group, namely persons who suffer

persecution due to gang activity, arising from his fear of gangs if he refuses to be

recruited into gangs; and the El Salvador government’s inability to control gangs.

See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a

social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”). We also reject

Rosales Cartegena’s political opinion claim based on his resistance to the gangs. 

See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84 (1992) (resisting forced

recruitment does not necessarily constitute persecution on account of political

opinion); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009) (resistance to

gang recruitment does not constitute political opinion). Because Rosales

Cartegena failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of a protected

ground, we uphold the agency’s denial of his withholding of removal claim. Id. at

856. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Case 3:94-cr-03066-RV-MD   Document 117   Filed 11/30/06   Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Santo R. Sgarlato, Jr., an Attorney, Respondent. Solomon A. Klein, Petitioner.

Motion by respondent to amend this court’s order dated February 14, 1967 [27 A D 2d 738] so as to make the effective date of his two-year suspension from the practice of law commence on June 2, 1967 instead of March 6, 1967. Motion granted to the extent of amending said order so as to make the effective date of said suspension April 15, 1967 and otherwise denied. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|            |   |                                                      |   |
|-----------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| August 14, 2012 | By:    | /s/ Mark Stevenson                                   |   |
|            |   | Mark Stevenson,Principal Executive Officer                |   |
|            |   |                                                      |   |
|            |   |                                                      |   |
|            |   |                                                      |   |
|            |   |                                                      |   |
| August 14, 2012 | By:    | /s/ Robert Wesolek                                        |   |
|            |   | Robert Wesolek,Principal Financial and Accounting Officer |   |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00233-CR

Larry Phillips, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-06-200770, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant Larry Phillips guilty of third-offense felony theft, for which

it assessed a term of twenty-one months in state jail and a $1,500 fine. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§ 31.03(a), (e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2006). In a single point of error, appellant contends that the

district court did not have jurisdiction because the indictment did not allege a felony offense. There

is no merit to this contention.

A person commits a state jail felony if he steals property worth $1,500 or more or if

he steals property worth less than $1,500 and has at least two previous theft offenses. Id.

§ 31.03(e)(4)(A), (D). The indictment in this cause alleged that appellant stole a wristwatch having

a value of less than $50 and that he had the requisite previous theft convictions. Appellant’s
2

argument, first advanced in a motion to quash the indictment, is that because the stolen watch was

alleged to be worth less than $50, the indictment alleged only a misdemeanor. See id.

§ 31.03(e)(1)(A).

When presented with this argument at the hearing on the motion to quash, the district

court replied, “[B]y saying the value of the property was $50 or less, they are saying that it is less

than 1,500 right?” The court added, “I mean, when they say 50 or less, I can take judicial knowledge

of the fact that that is less than 1,500, right?” The court concluded, “[I]t does seem to me they are

alleging that it is less than 1,500. And then that coupled with the two prior theft allegations—theft

convictions I think does raise that up to a state jail felony.”

We agree with the trial court’s analysis. By alleging that the stolen property was

worth less than $50, the indictment necessarily alleged that the stolen property was worth less than

$1,500. With the further allegation of two previous theft convictions, the indictment adequately

alleged third-offense felony theft under section 31.03(e)(4)(D). The point of error is overruled.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: March 13, 2007

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ FREDERIC SCHEER

Frederic ScheerChairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer / Principal Financial Officer)August 14, 2009
§ 205.311 USDA Seal. ( a ) The USDA seal described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section may be used only for raw or processed agricultural products described in paragraphs (a), (b), (e)(1), and (e)(2) of § 205.301.
( b ) The USDA seal must replicate the form and design of the example in figure 1 and must be printed legibly and conspicuously: ( 1 ) On a white background with a brown outer circle and with the term, “USDA,” in green overlaying a white upper semicircle and with the term, “organic,” in white overlaying the green lower half circle; or
( 2 ) On a white or transparent background with black outer circle and black “USDA” on a white or transparent upper half of the circle with a contrasting white or transparent “organic” on the black lower half circle.
( 3 ) The green or black lower half circle may have four light lines running from left to right and disappearing at the point on the right horizon to resemble a cultivated field.