alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Nos. 1D18-3675

 1D18-3783

(Consolidated for disposition)

_____________________________

LEVY M. BISHOP,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James C. Hankinson, Judge.

April 5, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Levy Bishop appeals orders revoking his probation in two 

separate cases. We consolidate the appeals, and we affirm.

Bishop raises a single issue on appeal. He contends that there 

was ineffective assistance of counsel obvious on the face of the 

record. Although ineffective-assistance claims are typically 

cognizable only in postconviction proceedings, in rare instances, 

appellants can raise ineffective assistance on direct appeal. Sims 

v. State, 260 So. 3d 509, 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). But to do so, an 

appellant must show, among other things, “indisputable 

prejudice.” Id. (quoting Morales v. State, 170 So. 3d 63, 67 (Fla. 1st 
2

DCA 2015)). Here, Bishop argues his counsel was ineffective for 

not adequately pursuing the earlier-filed motion to suppress. But 

rather than demonstrate indisputable prejudice, Bishop has only

argued that had the court granted the motion, Bishop would have 

prevailed—and that had the court not granted the motion, the 

issue would have at least been preserved for appellate review. This 

falls well short of what is necessary to meet the narrow exception 

to the general rule, so Bishop’s ineffective-assistance claims may 

only be raised in a postconviction proceeding. 

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kasey Lacey, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, for Appellee.
#### §§ 2003.19-2003.21 [Reserved]
9.206-2 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.209-1, Qualification Requirements, in

solicitations and contracts when the acquisition is subject to a qualification requirement.

Parent topic: 9.206 Acquisitions subject to qualification requirements.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29655]


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

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, December 7, 2010.

PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20594.

STATUS: The ONE item is open to the public.

Matter To Be Considered

8066A Aircraft Accident Report--Crash During Takeoff of Firefighting 
Helicopter, U.S. Forest Service, Sikorsky S-61N, N612AZ, Weaverville, 
California, August 5, 2008.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
    The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour 
prior to the meeting for set-up and seating.
    Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact 
Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, December 3, 2010.
    The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by 
accessing a link under ``News & Events'' on the NTSB home page at 
http://www.ntsb.gov.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Candi Bing, (202) 314-6403.

    Dated: Friday, November 19, 2010.
Candi R. Bing,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-29655 Filed 11-19-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
EXHIBIT 3.2 (b)

                                   AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                          AMENDED AND RESTATED BY-LAWS
                                       OF
                          THE LESLIE FAY COMPANY, INC.
                           (ADOPTED ON MARCH 16, 1999)



                  The second  sentence  of  paragraph  (A)(2) of Section  2.7 is
hereby   amended  to  provide  that  solely  for  the  1999  annual  meeting  of
stockholders,  a stockholder's notice, in order to be timely, shall be delivered
to the Secretary at the principal  office of the Corporation no later than April
25, 1999.
116 STAT. 1054 PUBLIC LAW 107–215—AUG. 21, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1456:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–223 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 107–199 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 147 (2001): Oct. 2, considered and passed House

Vol. 148 (2002): Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–215

107th Congress

An Act

To expand the boundary of the Booker T. Washington National Monument, and

for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Booker T. Washington National

Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2002’’.

SEC. 2. BOUNDARY OF BOOKER T. WASHINGTON NATIONAL MONUMENT EXPANDED.

The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the establishment

of the Booker T. Washington National Monument’’, approved April

2, 1956 (16 U.S.C. 450ll et seq.), is amended by adding at the

end the following new section:

‘‘SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL LANDS.

‘‘(a) LANDS ADDED TO MONUMENT.—The boundary of the Booker

T. Washington National Monument is modified to include the

approximately 15 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled

‘Boundary Map, Booker T. Washington National Monument,

Franklin County, Virginia’, numbered BOWA 404/80,024, and dated

February 2001. The map shall be on file and available for inspection

in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service, Department

of the Interior.

‘‘(b) ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LANDS.—The Secretary of the

Interior is authorized to acquire from willing owners the land

or interests in land described in subsection (a) by donation, purchase

with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.

‘‘(c) ADMINISTRATION OF ADDITIONAL LANDS.—Lands added to

the Booker T. Washington National Monument by subsection (a)

shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior as part

of the monument in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.’’.

Approved August 21, 2002.

16 USC 450ll–3.

16 USC 450ll

note.

Booker T.

Washington

National

Monument

Boundary

Adjustment Act

of 2002.

Virginia.

Aug. 21, 2002

[H.R. 1456]
# 4.2004 Contract clause.

The *contracting officer**shall* insert the clause at 52.204-23, Prohibition on *Contracting* for Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by *Kaspersky Lab Covered Entities*, in all *solicitations* and contracts.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 4.20 Prohibition on Contracting for Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Randolph Lawrence, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered December 13, 1974, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. Defendant was charged with murder in the stabbing death of Lynwood Banks. As a defense to this charge, defendant alleged that he had been intoxicated at the time the stabbing occurred. At trial, witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense indicated that the defendant had been drinking, although their opinions as to the state of his drunkenness varied in degree. The trial court submitted the case to the jury with instructions on the crime of murder (see Penal Law, § 125.25) and, alternatively, manslaughter in the first degree (see Penal Law, § 125.20) and manslaughter in the second degree (see Penal Law, § 125.15). As the first two crimes involved the element of intent, the trial court charged the jury with respect to intoxication (see Penal Law, § 15.25). While the jury was instructed in general terms as to the effect of intoxication on the elements of the crime charged, the trial court failed to explain the principle fully or to relate the effect of intoxication to the specific element of intent contained in the crimes of murder and manslaughter in the first degree (cf. CPL 300.10, subd 2). Instead, the trial court merely read section 15.25 of the Penal Law to the jury with little elaboration. By this charge, the defendant was deprived of the jury’s proper consideration of the issue of intoxication (see *People v Cesare,*68 AD2d 938; *People v Summer,*64 AD2d 658; *People v Valentine,*54 AD2d 568). If the jury had been adequately charged—a finding of intoxication would negate the defendant’s intent to kill or cause serious physical injury—it might have determined that the defendant was guilty only of manslaughter in the second degree, a crime which does not involve the element of intent (see Penal Law, § 125.15). For this reason a new trial is necessary (see *People v Cesare, supra; People v Summer, supra; People v Valentine, supra).*Although in light of our determination that a new trial is warranted and we need not reach the issue, we note that the trial court should have held a hearing to determine whether circumstances surrounding the jury’s note to the Judge, received prior to the case being submitted to them, amounted to misconduct which prejudiced the defendant’s right to a fair trial (see *United States v Hockridge,*573 F2d 752, cert den *sub nom. Easton v United States,*439 US 821; *People v Gordon,*77 AD2d 662; *People v Belknap,*57 AD2d 970). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             680
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,241
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,538
<INVENTORY>                                     36,649
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,413
<PP&E>                                          34,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,428
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,508
<BONDS>                                         27,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,781
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,360
<SALES>                                         43,101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               154,032
<CGS>                                          115,052
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,451
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,865
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,664
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,215
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,449
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,449
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

McCombs, 7:20cv94

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 5

This Order addresses Plaintiff’s objections and counter-designations to 

Defendants’ affirmative deposition designations and Defendants’ objections to 

Plaintiff’s counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions:

1. Donaldson, Jodee

SO ORDERED, on this 20th day of May, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 133 Filed 05/20/21 Page 1 of 1
STATE POPULATION ESTIMATES
14.202-7 Facsimile bids.

(a) Unless prohibited or otherwise restricted by agency procedures, contracting officers may

authorize facsimile bids (see 14.201-6(v)). In determining whether or not to authorize facsimile bids,

the contracting officer shall consider factors such as-

(1) Anticipated bid size and volume;

(2) Urgency of the requirement;

(3) Frequency of price changes;

(4) Availability, reliability, speed, and capacity of the receiving facsimile equipment; and

(5) Adequacy of administrative procedures and controls for receiving, identifying, recording, and

safeguarding facsimile bids, and ensuring their timely delivery to the bids opening location.

(b) If facsimile bids are authorized, contracting officers may, after the date set for bid opening,

request the apparently successful offeror to provide the complete, original signed bid.

Parent topic: 14.202 General rules for solicitation of bids.
§ 4284.1008 Use of grant funds. Grant funds may be used to assist eligible recipients in establishing Centers that provide Producer Services and may only be used to support operations of the Center that directly relate to providing Producer Services. Grant funds may be used for the following purposes, subject to the limitations set forth in § 4284.10: ( a ) Consulting services for legal, accounting and technical services to be used by the grantee in establishing and operating a Center;
( b ) Hiring of employees, at the discretion of the Qualified Board of Directors;
( c ) The making of matching grants to agricultural producers, individually not to exceed $5,000, where the aggregate amount of all such matching grants made by the grantee does not exceed $50,000;
( d ) Applied research;
( e ) Legal services; and
( f ) Such other related purposes as the Agency may announce in the RFP.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 4.40



Mr. Pascal E. Spothelfer
3570 Mathers Avenue
West Vancouver BC
V7V 2L1
Canada





Burnaby, January 18, 2005




Dear Pascal:

Re: Amendment to Terms of Employment

Having successfully completed our negotiations, I have the pleasure to confirm
the following amendment to your current terms of employment with Spectrum Signal
Processing Inc.

Effective January 1, 2005, your base salary will be Can$280,000 per annum and
your annual bonus at target will be Can$145,000. Upon signing of these amended
terms you will be granted an additional 200,000 options (the details of which
will be specified in a separate option agreement). All other terms and
conditions of your employment remain unchanged and valid.

I also would like to point out that the board of directors is prepared to
consider extraordinary bonuses if appropriate, particularly in connection with
the successful completion of Merger and Acquisition transaction. But both the
award and the amounts awarded in such cases remain at the full discretion of the
board of directors.

I am also pleased to formally confirm that the Company will continue to pay your
annual dues for the Young Presidents Organization (YPO) and your annual dues for
your membership in your YPO Forum; the latter for an amount up to Can$3,000 per
annum.
<PAGE>
The Company will also cover your cost for annual tax advisory and tax return
services up to a maximum of Can$1,500.

On behalf of Spectrum's Board of Directors, I would like to thank you for your
dedication to the Company over the past five years and I am looking forward to a
bright future for Spectrum under your continued leadership.


Best regards,

SPECTRUM SIGNAL PROCESSING INC.



per:     Andrew Harries
         Chair, Compensation and Nominating Committee

In order to indicate your formal acceptance of this amendment to your terms of
employment as outlined herein, please return the original document bearing your
signature in the space provided below.


                                            /s/ Pascal Spothelfer
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Pascal E. Spothelfer
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Josephine Clemente, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding that claimant willfully made a false statement to obtain benefits and imposing a forfeiture of 24 effective days (Labor Law, § 594). *“*Section 594 does not require a criminal intent or proof sufficient to support larceny” *(Matter of Bernstein [Corsi],*278 App. Div. 625, affd. 303 N. Y. 755). Furthermore, “ Whether the necessary ‘element of *scienter*and knowledge of falsity or wrongfulness ’ is present in a given ease is a question of fact and therefore is for the board to determine.” *(Matter of Soroka [Cather*wood], 24 A D 2d 920, 921; *Matter of Campbell*[Catherwood], 23 A D 2d 515; *Matter of Bailey*[Catherwood], 18 A D 2d 727). We cannot say, as a matter of law, that the board on the instant record could not reach the decision rendered. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Reynolds, J.
2006-0216.

#### State v. Tooley.

Portage App. No. 2004-P-0064, 2005-Ohio-6709. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at pages 2-3 of the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed January 25, 2006:

“1. Whether the statutory inference provided in R.C. 2907.322(B)(3) renders R.C. 2907.322(A)(5) unconstitutionally overbroad in light of the decision announced in *Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition*[(2002), 535 U.S. 234]?

“2. Whether R.C. 2907.323(A)(3)’s culpable mental state of recklessness renders this section of the statute unconstitutionally overbroad in light of the decision announced in *Ashcroft v. The Free Speech*Coalition?”

The conflict cases are *State v. Eichorn,*Morrow App. No. 02 CA 953, 2003-Ohio-3145, *State v. Anderson,*151 Ohio App.3d 422, 2003-Ohio-429, and *State v. Morris,*Wayne App. No. 04CA0036, 2005-Ohio-599.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2006-0105, *State v. Tooley,*Portage App. No. 2004-P-0064, 2005-Ohio-6709.
EXHIBIT 32.1



October 30, 2009

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Lazard Group LLC (the Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|/s/    Steven J. Golub                                                       
|Steven J. Golub Interim
Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)



The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 24

- 00245

- CR

JOHN CREE A/K/A JOHN MICHAEL CREE

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 462nd District Court of Denton County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. F21

- 2451

- 462

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, hav ing considered this cause on
appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
June 27, 2024
U.S. Department of 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Office of the Secretary

of Transportation May 26, 2011

ERRATUM TO

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN –

Dated September 27, 2010

DOCKET DOT-OST-2007-28655 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no 

additional confirming order will be issued in this matter).

In the Matter of the Application of: 

GREAT WALL AIRLINES CO., LTD. (Great Wall)

In the Notice of Action Taken dated September 27, 2010, we inadvertently omitted a condition normally imposed on 

foreign air carriers of the People’s Republic of China. In this regard, we continue to require Great Wall, in accordance 

with 14 CFR § 212.9(d) of our regulations, to obtain prior Department approval in the form of statements of 

authorization, before operating any charter trips to or from the United States.

Applicant representative: Charles F. Donley, 202-626-6840 DOT analyst: Brett D. Kruger, 202-366-8025

The above action was effective when taken: May 26, 2011

Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director

Office of International Aviation

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

http://www.regulations.gov
[ARTICLE] 5
[LEGEND]
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from SEC Form
10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
[/LEGEND]
[CIK] 0000796912
[NAME] PLAYERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
[MULTIPLIER] 1,000
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          MAR-31-1997
[PERIOD-END]                               MAR-31-1997
[CASH]                                          20,567
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                    4,170
[ALLOWANCES]                                     1,028
[INVENTORY]                                      1,955
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                67,576
[PP&E]                                         237,778
[DEPRECIATION]                                  27,336
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                 421,289
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                           51,856
[BONDS]                                        187,500
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                           163
[OTHER-SE]                                     155,718
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                   421,289
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                               291,210
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                  139,579
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                               207,900
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                              15,998
[INCOME-PRETAX]                               (71,789)
[INCOME-TAX]                                  (25,491)
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                           (46,298)
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                  (46,298)
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                   (1.56)
[EPS-DILUTED]                                   (1.56)
</TABLE>