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

FOURTH DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v.

CHRISTOPHE A. CREMERS,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3723

[April 28, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Gary L. Sweet, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562016CF002993A.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Christine C. Geraghty, 

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We grant the appellee’s motion for clarification, withdraw our opinion, 

and substitute the following opinion in its place.

The State appeals an order entered pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 3.800(b)(2) on defendant’s motion to correct his sentence 

reducing the costs of prosecution assessed from $200 to $100.1 On 

1 Defendant filed an appeal and then filed a motion to correct a sentencing error 

(the prosecution costs) pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 

3.800(b)(2). The State then cross-appealed the judge’s ruling granting relief. The 

defendant then voluntarily dismissed his appeal. Section 924.07, Florida 

Statutes, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140 set forth what matters 

may be appealed by the State. Section 924.07(1)(d) permits the State to appeal 

a question of law when the defendant appeals, and permits the State appeal to 

continue even when the defendant dismisses the appeal. Because the parties 

have stipulated that there was a lack of preservation of the cost issue at 
2

appeal, the defendant concedes error, because he affirmatively told the 

court at the sentencing hearing that he had no objection to the imposition 

of these costs after the State requested them. Pursuant to section 

938.27(8), Florida Statutes, a court shall impose $100 as the costs of 

prosecution for a felony and may impose a greater amount upon sufficient 

proof of such costs. However, an objection to the sufficiency of the proof

must be made contemporaneously with the assessment of costs. Because 

the proper documentation of the costs of prosecution is an evidentiary 

error in the sentencing process, it cannot be preserved through a rule 

3.800(b)(2) motion. See Rivera v. State, 34 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); 

see also Mapp v. State, 71 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 2011) (finding that insufficiency 

of the evidence at a restitution hearing is not cognizable under rule 

3.800(b)). Therefore, the court erred in granting relief. We reverse and 

remand for reinstatement of the original judgment for costs including $200 

in prosecution costs.

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER, MAY and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Final Upon Release; No Motion For Rehearing Will Be Entertained.

sentencing, they stipulated to the facts, and the issue presented in this case is 

one of law.
§ 55.6001-1 Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns. ( a ) *In general.* Any person subject to tax under Chapter 44 of the Code shall keep such complete and detailed records as are sufficient to enable the district director to determine accurately the amount of liability under Chapter 44.
( b ) *Notice by district director requiring returns, statements, or the keeping of records.* The district director may require any person, by notice served upon him, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such specific records as will enable the district director to determine whether or not such person is liable for tax under Chapter 44.
( c ) *Retention of records.* The records required by this section shall be kept at all times available for inspection by authorized internal revenue officers or employees, and shall be retained so long as the contents thereof may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20076

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN CARLOS MEDELLIN-TORRES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-291-1

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Carlos Medellin-Torres (Medellin) appeals his guilty plea convictions

and sentences for possession of a firearm by an illegal alien and possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (5). He

argues that his convictions and sentences, which were based on possession ofthe

same weapon, are multiplicitous and violate double jeopardy. The Government

concedes that our decision in UnitedStates v. Munoz-Romo, 989 F.2d 757, 759-60

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-20076

2

(5th Cir. 1993), is controlling. Medellin is correct that his convictions for illegal

alien in possession of a firearm and felon in possession of a firearm violate his

rights against double jeopardy. See Munoz-Romo, 989 F.2d at 759-60. In light

of Munoz-Romo, we remand the case so that the district court may vacate one of

the convictions and resentence Medellin. See id.

Medellin also asserts that the district court erred by imposing a four-level

sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6), based on a finding

that Medellin possessed the firearm “in connection with” another felony. He

asserts that there was no evidence presented at rearraignment or sentencing to

establish that the firearm was “in close proximity” to the drugs and drug

paraphernalia found in his home. See § 2K2.1, comment. (n.14(B)(ii)). Because

“we have remanded for resentencing, and it is likely that this same issue will

recur,” we will address the claim at this time. See United States v. Buchanan,

485 F.3d 274, 286 (5th Cir. 2007). Medellin did not challenge the imposition of

the enhancement in the district court on this ground; we therefore review for

plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993); United

States v. Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Medellin is raising

a factual question that could have been resolved with a proper objection, he

cannot establish plain error. See United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th

Cir. 1995); United States v. Condren, 18 F.3d 1190, 1199-1200 (5th Cir. 1994).

The district court should resentence Medellin in accordance with this opinion

after vacating one of the convictions. See Buchanan, 485 F.3d at 288.

REMANDED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1165 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1165

 To amend the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 to include 
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Rockbridge Counties, Virginia, as part of the 
                          Appalachian region.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 1995

 Mr. Goodlatte (for himself and Mr. Boucher) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 to include 
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Rockbridge Counties, Virginia, as part of the 
                          Appalachian region.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF MONTGOMERY, ROANOKE, AND ROCKBRIDGE COUNTIES, 
              VIRGINIA, AS PART OF APPALACHIAN REGION.

    The 12th undesignated paragraph of section 403 of the Appalachian 
Regional Development Act of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 403) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``Montgomery,'' after ``Lee,''; and
            (2) by inserting ``Roanoke, Rockbridge,'' after 
        ``Pulaski,''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 41.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparer. ( a ) *In general.* For general definitions regarding section 6694 penalties applicable to preparers of tax returns or claims for refund, see § 1.6694-1 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78455, Dec. 22, 2008]
# L_2020020EN.01002501.xml

| 24.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 20/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 20/25

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/1155 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 188 of 12 July 2019
  )

On page 30, in point (3) of Article 1, the amendment to point (c) of Article 3(5)

for:

| ‘(c) | third-country nationals holding a valid visa for a Member State which does not take part in the adoption of this Regulation, or for a Member State which does not yet apply the provisions of the Schengen acquis in full, or for a country which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, or for Canada, Japan or the United States of America, ...’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(c)

third-country nationals holding a valid visa for a Member State which does not take part in the adoption of this Regulation, or for a Member State which does not yet apply the provisions of the Schengen acquis in full, or for a country which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, or for Canada, Japan or the United States of America, ...’,

read:

| ‘(c) | third-country nationals holding a valid visa for a Member State which does not take part in the adoption of this Regulation, or for a Member State which does not yet apply the provisions of the Schengen acquis in full, or for Canada, Japan or the United States of America, ...’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(c)

third-country nationals holding a valid visa for a Member State which does not take part in the adoption of this Regulation, or for a Member State which does not yet apply the provisions of the Schengen acquis in full, or for Canada, Japan or the United States of America, ...’.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Taiwan Lowmack, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 762]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered May 9, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree, petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of, inter alia, robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). We reject defendant’s contention that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, and we conclude that “ ‘the evidence is of such weight and credibility as to convince us that the jury was justified in finding . . . defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” *(People v Cahill,*2 NY3d 14, 58 [2003]; *see generally People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; *Bleakley,*69 NY2d at 495).

Contrary to the further contention of defendant, Supreme Court set forth on the record the basis for its decision that de*1088fendant be restrained during the trial. The record establishes that the court stated that the basis for its decision was to ensure the safety of the persons in the courtroom inasmuch as defendant had been involved in an altercation with deputies at the jail during the previous day *(see People v Rouse,*79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]). Defendant failed to object to the court’s curative instruction with respect to the restraints and therefore failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in providing a curative instruction despite his request that none be given *(see generally People v Robinson,*88 NY2d 1001 [1996]).. Although defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court in its curative instruction misrepresented the basis for its decision to restrain defendant during the trial, we note that we agree with defendant that the court erred in stating that defendant was restrained because of his behavior in the courtroom. We conclude, however, that the error is harmless *(see generally People v Kello,*96 NY2d 740, 744 [2001]; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1189 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1189

  To prohibit arms transfers and other military assistance to certain 
 countries unless the President certifies that a state of war does not 
 exist between the country concerned and Israel and that such country 
     has accorded formal recognition to the sovereignty of Israel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 1995

 Mr. Schumer  introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                  Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit arms transfers and other military assistance to certain 
 countries unless the President certifies that a state of war does not 
 exist between the country concerned and Israel and that such country 
     has accorded formal recognition to the sovereignty of Israel.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND ARMS TRANSFERS TO 
              CERTAIN COUNTRIES.

    (a) Restriction.--Except as provided in subsection (b)--
            (1) assistance under chapter 2 or chapter 5 of part II of 
        the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 may not be provided to any 
        country listed in subsection (c);
            (2) defense articles, defense services, and design and 
        construction services may not be sold or otherwise transferred 
        to any country listed in subsection (c) by the United States 
        Government under the Arms Export Control Act; and
            (3) the President may not give his approval for the 
        transfer to any country listed in subsection (c) by another 
        foreign country of any assistance described in paragraph (1), 
        or any defense articles or defense services, previously sold or 
        otherwise transferred to that other foreign country by the 
        United States Government under either the Foreign Assistance 
        Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control Act.
    (b) Lifting of Restriction.--Subsection (a) shall cease to apply to 
a country listed in subsection (c) if the President certifies to the 
Congress that--
            (1) a state of war does not exist between that country and 
        Israel, and
            (2) that country has accorded formal recognition of Israel.
    (c) Countries Subject to Restriction.--Subsection (a) applies to 
the following countries: Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, 
Libya, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this Act, the terms ``defense article'', ``defense 
service'', and ``design and construction services'' have the meanings 
given those terms in section 47 of the Arms Export Control Act.
                                 <all>
```
§ 31.3121(b)(2)-1 Domestic service performed by students for certain college organizations. ( a ) Services of a household nature performed in or about the club rooms or house of a local college club, or in or about the club rooms or house of a local chapter of a college fraternity or sorority, by a student who is enrolled and regularly attending classes at a school, college, or university are excepted from employment. For purposes of this exception, the statutory tests are the type of services performed by the employee, the character of the place where the services are performed, and the status of the employee as a student enrolled and regularly attending classes at a school, college, or university.
( b ) In general, services of a household nature in or about the club rooms or house of a local college club or local chapter of a college fraternity or sorority include services rendered by cooks, waiters, butlers, maids, janitors, laundresses, furnacemen, handymen, gardeners, housekeepers, and housemothers.
( c ) A local college club or local chapter of a college fraternity or sorority does not include an alumni club or chapter. If the club rooms or house of a local college club or local chapter of a college fraternity or sorority is used primarily for the purpose of supplying board or lodging to students or the public as a business enterprise, the services performed therein are not within the exception.
( d ) An organization is a *school, college, or university* within the meaning of section 3121(b)(2) if its primary function is the presentation of formal instruction, it normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum, and it normally has a regularly enrolled body of students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are regularly carried on. See section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and the regulations thereunder.
( e ) Services of a household nature are not within the exception if performed in or about rooming or lodging houses, boarding houses, clubs (except local college clubs) hotels, hospitals, eleemosynary institutions, or commercial offices or establishments.
( f ) For provisions relating to domestic service in a private home of the employer, see § 31.3121(a)(7)-1.
[T.D. 6516, 25 FR 13032, Dec. 20, 1960; 25 FR 14021, Dec. 31, 1960, as amended by T.D. 9167, 69 FR 76405, Dec. 21, 2004]
# CI2021015EN.01000101.xml

| 14.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 15/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 15/1

---

Corrigendum to Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission – EU Legislative Priorities for 2021

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 451 I of 29 December 2020
  )

(2021/C 15 I/01)

Publication (2020/C 451 I/01) on page 1 is to be considered null and void.

---
These changes were read into the record at the February 23, 2010 Hearing Board in

response to comment letters from Dunn Edwards Paints and the American Coatings

Association 

# PROPOSED CHANGES

To allow industry an opportunity to clear its inventory and comply

with new VOC limits in a timely manner.



# I CAPCD Rule 424 : Architectural Coating s

DELETIONS:

Section G.5.m: Gonioapparent Characteristics for Coatings

REINSTATEMENT FOR SE LL THROUGH PURPOSES : INVENTORY WILL NEED

TO BE CLEARED BY JANAURY 1, 2011.

Drying Time previously section D.6.f

Surface Chalkiness previously section D.6.g

Most Restrictive VOC Limit Section D.2

Antenna coatings

Antifouling Coatings

Fire retardand coating s Flow Coatings

Lacquer coatings (including lacquer sanding sealers)

Temperature indicator safety coatings



# ICAPCD Rule 101: DEFINITIONS

DELETIONS:

Sealer

Undercoater

Gonioapparent Characteristics for Coatings

REINSTATEMENT FOR SELL THROUGH PURPOSES : INV ENTORY WILL NEED

TO BE CLEARED BY JANAURY 1, 2011.

Antenna Coating

Antifouling Coating

Clear Brushing

Clear Wood Coatings

Lacquer

Quick

- Dry Enamel

Primer, Sealer, and Undercoater

Sanding Sealer

Specialty Primer, Sealer, and Undercoater

Swimming Pool Repair and Maintenance Coating

Temperature

- Indicator Safety Coating

Varnish

Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealer

Waterproofing Sealer

THE CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO ALLOW INDUSTRY AN OPPORTUNITY TO

NOT ONLY CLEAR ITS INVENTORY BUT TO ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR

T ESTING AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW VOC LIMITS EFFECTIVE JANAURY

1, 2011

.
www.gpo.gov

### §389e. Actions taken to be included in report to Congress

The Secretary shall include in the report to Congress required pursuant to section 389a 1 of this title, a description of actions taken under the provisions of sections 389 to 389e of this title during the preceding fiscal year. No proceedings under such sections shall become effective until approved by the Congress.

(June 22, 1936, ch. 692, §6, 49 Stat. 1804; Pub. L. 96–470, title II, §206(b), Oct. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 2244.)

#### Amendments

1980—Pub. L. 96–470 substituted provision requiring the Secretary to include in the report to Congress required pursuant to section 389a of this title a description of the actions taken under sections 389 to 389e of this title during the preceding fiscal year for provision requiring the Secretary to make reports to Congress on the first Monday of each regular session, and from time to time thereafter, showing actions taken under sections 389 to 389e of this title during the preceding fiscal year.

#### Approval of Secretary's Action

The action of the Secretary of the Interior in deferring the collection of certain irrigation charges against lands under the Blackfeet Indian irrigation project in Montana was approved by Joint Res. Apr. 11, 1940, ch. 78, 54 Stat. 105.

1 So in original. Probably should refer to section 386a.
#### § 31.3101-1 Measure of employee tax.

The employee tax is measured by the amount of wages received after 1954 with respect to employment after 1936. See § 31.3121(a)-1, relating to wages; and §§ 31.3121(b)-1 to 31.3121(b)-4, inclusive, relating to employment. For provisions relating to the time of receipt of wages, see § 31.3121(a)-2.

[T.D. 6744, 29 FR 8305, July 2, 1964]
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00835

- CV

Alejandro RODRIGUEZ and Lisa Rodriguez,

Appellants

v.

VRM [VENDOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT] , Duly Authorized Agent for The Secretary

of Veterans Affairs,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CV04366

Honorable Jason Wolff, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of t he trial court is

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that Appellee VRM recover the costs of this appeal from Appellant s

Alejandro Rodriguez and Lisa Rodriguez.

SIGNED January 31, 2018.

_____________________________ Irene Rios, Justice