alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed March 1, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1211

Lower Tribunal No. F05-5281A

________________

Raudel Robinson,

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, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge.

Raudel Robinson, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kseniya Smychkouskaya, 

Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Raudel Robinson appeals the trial court’s “Order Denying ‘Defendant’s 

Second or Successive Motion for Post-Conviction Relief Newly Discovered 

Evidence/Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.’” 

Upon review of the record and the previous filings by Robinson and 

dispositions by this Court thereof, we affirm. See Placide v. State, 189 So. 

3d 810, 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (finding that the information in an affidavit 

alleging the jurors were witnessed prejudging the case could have been 

discovered with due diligence and was inherently incredible because the 

affiant was a close family friend who withheld this knowledge for 21 years); 

Rivero v. State, 15 So. 3d 625, 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding that 

defendant was not entitled to a hearing on his second post-conviction motion 

based on alleged newly discovered evidence of ineffective assistance of 

counsel during plea negotiations, as there was no allegation or proof that the 

“newly discovered evidence” was unknown to the court, parties, or counsel 

at the time of trial and could not have been timely discovered with due 

diligence); see also Martinez v. State, 265 So. 3d 690, 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2019) (finding that the record conclusively refuted defendant’s postconviction claim that his defense counsel failed to communicate pretrial plea 

offers ranging from 5 to 10 years in prison in exchange for a guilty plea, 

where the record reflected counsel for both parties denied the existence of 
3

any plea offers at the onset of jury selection); Morgan v. State, 912 So. 2d 

642, 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (holding that defendant failed to show that trial 

counsel’s alleged failure to communicate a plea offer to him was newly 

discovered evidence that could be considered under the exception to the 

two-year time limit for filing a motion for post-conviction relief, where the 

defendant failed to allege how he obtained information about the plea offer 

and why he could not have obtained it earlier by the use of due diligence 

within the two-year period).

Affirmed.
No. 99-8640.

#### Hukill v. Auto Care, Inc., et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 601.524 Execution and filing powers of attorney and tax information authorizations. ( a ) *Time of filing.* A copy of the power of attorney must be filed in each office (that is, office of a regional regulatory administrator and Office of the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms), in which a document specified in § 601.522, covered by the power of attorney, is required to be filed, or in which the representative desires to perform one or more of the acts enumerated in paragraph (c)(1) of § 601.502. If a power of attorney covering an act otherwise requiring the filing of a tax information authorization has not been filed, a copy of the tax information authorization must be filed in each office in which the representative inspects or receives confidential information, or, where acts requiring a power of attorney or a tax information authorization are handled by correspondence, the representative should enclose a copy of the power or authorization with the initial correspondence. However, where a power of attorney or tax information authorization is on file with the regional regulatory administrator in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, an additional copy thereof will not be required in the office of the regional counsel of the same region.
( b ) *Execution.* The power of attorney required by § 601.522, or tax information authorization required by § 601.523, shall be executed in the manner prescribed in paragraph (b) of § 601.504; shall indicate all acts to which it relates; should contain the mailing address of the representative; and, if more than one representative is authorized to perform the same acts on behalf of the industry member or other person, a designation as to which representative is to receive notices and other written communications. For rules relating to the mailing of notices or other written communications to a representative, see § 601.506.
( c ) *Attestation and corporate seal.* In the case of a corporation, a power of attorney filed with an officer of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms must be attested by the secretary and the corporate seal must be affixed. If the officer who signs the power of attorney is also the secretary, another officer of the corporation, preferably the president, vice president, or treasurer, must also sign the power of attorney so that two different individuals' signatures appear thereon. If the corporation has no seal, a certified copy of a resolution duly passed on by the board of directors of the corporation authorizing the execution of powers of attorney should be attached.
( d ) *Acknowledgment.* A power of attorney filed with an office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms must be acknowledged, witnessed, or certified as provided in paragraph (d) of § 601.504.
[32 FR 15990, Nov. 22, 1967, as amended at 34 FR 6432, Apr. 12, 1969; 45 FR 7259, Feb. 1, 1980]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ALVIN WASHINGTON,

Petitioner

v.

PAUL M. YATRON, J., COURT OF

COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS COUNTY,

PA,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 126 MM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15 th day of March , 2023, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is

DENIED. The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
#### Charles COFFMAN and E. Jean Coffman, his wife, Petitioners, v. Jack JORDAN and Emily A. Jordan, his wife, Respondents.

No. 74-109.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 13, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1975.

J. C. Sapp, Orlando, for petitioners.

Joseph E. Neduchal, Robert D. Melton & Associates, P. A., Orlando, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This Petition for a Writ of Certiorari seeks review of a cost judgment in which Respondents were awarded $1500.00 for attorneys fees. Petitioners filed suit in the Circuit Court for breach of contract and accounting against the Respondents and subsequently voluntarily dismissed same pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.420(a) (1) (i). Thereafter the trial court granted Respondents’ Motion to Tax Costs, including the disputed $1,500.00 for attorneys fees.

Attorneys fees are not an allowable item of taxable costs in a common law suit in this State except in certain instances which need not be repeated here. On the authority of Kittel v. Kittel, Fla.1967, 210 So.2d 1, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is accordingly hereby granted and the Order of the trial court awarding attorneys fees as taxable costs is quashed. This cause is re*228manded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., and MOORE, JOHN H., II, Associate Judge, concur.
§ 569.510 Official business of certain international organizations and entities. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all transactions prohibited by this part that are for the conduct of the official business of the following entities by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof are authorized: ( 1 ) The United Nations, including its Programmes, Funds, and Other Entities and Bodies, as well as its Specialized Agencies and Related Organizations;
( 2 ) The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA);
( 3 ) The African Development Bank Group, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group), including any fund entity administered or established by any of the foregoing;
( 4 ) The International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies;
( 5 ) The Arab Monetary Fund and the Islamic Development Bank; and
( 6 ) The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
( b ) This section does not authorize funds transfers initiated or processed with knowledge or reason to know that the intended beneficiary of such transfers is a person blocked pursuant to this part, other than for the purpose of effecting the payment of taxes, fees, or import duties, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services.
[87 FR 78478, Dec. 21, 2022]
#### § 587.309 OFAC.

The term *OFAC* means the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****U.S. history [electronicresource].**
 
2001 | 2006
 
SuDoc Number:ED 1.136/5:
Item Number:0455-Q-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000627799
 
September 10, 2019
RELIEF AGAINST SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.

Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.

#### The Cincinnati Ice Co. et al v. City of Cincinnati et al.

Decided, December 6, 1915.

*Assessments*— Validity *of, for Street Improvements*— May *Not he Enjoined hecause in Excess of Benefits*— Degree *of Proof*Required— *Market Value.*

A special assessment will not be enjoined on the ground that the benefits are not equal to the assessment unless it is clearly and convincingly shown, nor will the question of market value before and after the improvement alone be considered.

*Geo. J. Slaline*and *John J. Acomb,*for plaintiffs.

*Walter M. Schoenle,*City Solicitor, and *Frank K. Bowman,*Assistant City Solicitor, contra.

Jones (Oliver B.), J.

This is an action to contest the validity of an assessment for the improvement of Livingston street, by paving with granite, heard on appeal Prom the court of insolvency.

While the petition contains allegations of irregularity in the proceedings of council, no attempt was made to support them by any evidence. The only evidence offered by plaintiffs was for the purpose of showing that the assessment was in excess of the benefits. Testimony was submitted by plaintiffs to show that the market value after the completion of the improvement was no greater than it had been before. Defendants, however, produced testimony showing that the market value of plaintiffs’ respective lots directly after the improvement exceeded their value immediately before the improvement by a sum largely in excess of the amount of the assessment.

The street had been improved by bowldering in 1867 and 1872. There had been no subsequent improvement until the one in question, and the pavement and curbs were out of repair and in bad condition. The evidence showed that the real estate *512in that locality had suffered a general deterioration in value. So, even if the evidence of plaintiffs were taken to the exclusion of that of defendants, it might still be possible that a considerable benefit had been conferred upon the abutting lots by this improvement, even though the market value had remained the same.

It is true that the foundation for the support of a special assessment is the special benefit conferred by the improvement, and that such assessment can in no case exceed such benefit. *Chamberlain*v. *City of Cleveland,*34 Ohio St., 551; *Walsh*v. *Barron, Treas.,*61 Ohio St., 15, and *Walsh*v. *Sims, Treas.,*65 Ohio St., 211.

But an assessment will not be enjoined on the ground that the benefits are not equal to the assessment, unless it is clearly and convincingly shown. Nor will the question of market value before and after the improvement alone be considered. *McMaken*v. *Hayes et al,*10 C.C.(N.S.), 38, and *Prentice*v. *City of Toledo,*11 C.C.(N.S.), 299.

In this case the evidence fails to convince the court that the assessments are in any instance in excess of the benefits conferred by the improvement, and the petition will therefore be dismissed at plaintiffs’ costs.

Petition dismissed.

Jones (E. H.), J., and Gorman, J., concur.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 22, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00518-CV

TRACEY UBANII, Appellant

V.

NEXPOINT HICKORY LEASE CO, LLC DBA HICKORY CREEK 

RANCH, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV-2022-01359-JP

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a final judgment signed June 6, 2022. The clerk’s record 

was filed July 25, 2022. On September 15, 2022, the court reporter indicated that 

appellant has not paid for the reporter’s record, submitted an order for a free 

reporter’s record, or submitted a request for preparation and/or a written designation 

for the record. No brief was filed.

On October 6, 2022, this court issued an order stating that unless appellant 
2

filed a brief on or before November 7, 2022, the appeal was subject to dismissal 

without further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

Appellant filed no brief or other response. We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.
S A N I T I Z E D EPICLON HP - 4700 OPERA TION DESCRIPTION
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...Jose Luis Miranda  Rodriguez

# 				Jose Luis Miranda  Rodriguez 			

				Local Guard Force			

Deceased				October 10, 1990			

Jose Luis Miranda Rodriguez, a Bolivian police guard assigned to the U.S. Embassy in La Paz, Bolivia, was killed by hostile fire in an attack on the U.S. Embassy Marine Security Guard residence (Marine House) on October 10, 1990.

**Please contact DS Public Affairs (dspublicaffairs@state.gov) if you have a digital image of this individual.**

Back to DSS Memorial

Tags

BoliviaDiplomatic Security Service Memorial

Back to Top
HomeBureau of International Security and Nonproliferation...Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation  Releases

# Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation Releases

280 items

        -    Interview  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 1, 2021Washington, DC 
        -    		Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act (IFCA) Section 1245	  January 22, 2021 
        -    		Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation	  January 20, 2021 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance (EXBS)	  January 20, 2021 
        -    		Ann K. Ganzer	  September 20, 2020 
        -    		The International Atomic Energy Agency	   
        -    Fact Sheet  		Nuclear Cooperation Memoranda of Understanding (NCMOU)	   
        -    Fact Sheet  		The IAEA Peaceful Uses Initiative and the NPT	   
        -    		Proliferation Security Initiative	   
        -    		Gonzalo Suarez	  June 29, 2018 

previous page1…25262728next page

Back to Top
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Remarks & Releases
- Reports
- Key Topics
- Contact Us

HomeBureau of Political-Military Affairs...Contact Us – Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

# 									Contact Us – Bureau of Political-Military Affairs							

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

		Follow Us		

The Office of Congressional & Public Affairs (CPA) is responsible for facilitating effective communication and interaction between the Assistant Secretary and the staff of the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and the Congress, foreign and domestic media, and the general public. CPA is responsible for managing the PM Bureau’s Congressional affairs, public affairs, and public diplomacy functions.

Director: Joshua M. PaulPhone: 202-647-7878e-mail: pauljm@state.gov

Public Affairs Specialist: David McKeebyPhone: 202-647-8757e-mail:mckeebydi@state.gov

Public Affairs Specialist: Andrew StrikePhone: 202-736-7804e-mail: StrikeAP@state.gov

Please follow the PM Bureau on Twitter ***@StateDeptPM ***. You may also follow Assistant Secretary R. Clarke Cooper ***@AsstSecPM ***.

Tags

Bureau of Political-Military AffairsDefense Trade ControlsDeminingExport ControlsHumanitarian Mine ActionPolitical-Military CooperationUnder Secretary for Arms Control and International Security

Back to Top
#### § 591.508 Authorization of emergency medical services.

The provision of nonscheduled emergency medical services in the United States to persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 591.201, is authorized, provided that all receipt of payment for such services must be specifically licensed.

[80 FR 39677, July 10, 2015, as amended at 84 FR 64417, Nov. 22, 2019]
# Cuba

158 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 20, 2024	  Matthew MillerFebruary 20, 2024Washington, DC 
        -    Media Note  		U.S. – Cuba Law Enforcement Dialogue	  February 7, 2024 
        -    DipNote: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance  		Welcome Corps:  First Year of Refugee Private Sponsorship a Big Success	  January 19, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Religious Freedom Designations	  Antony J. BlinkenJanuary 4, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 14, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 14, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department of Justice Release  		Former U.S. Ambassador and National Security Council Official Charged with Secretly Acting as an Agent of the Cuban Government	  December 4, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – November 14, 2023	  Matthew MillerNovember 14, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – September 25, 2023	  Matthew MillerSeptember 25, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – September 14, 2023	  Matthew MillerSeptember 14, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – September 5, 2023	  Vedant PatelSeptember 5, 2023Washington, D.C. 

previous page1234…16next page

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000702904
<NAME> AMBANC CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          20,520
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             692
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                22,653
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    173,469
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        442,657
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,022
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 682,347
<DEPOSITS>                                     600,069
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,788
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,101
<LONG-TERM>                                      2,677
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,590
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,122
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 682,347
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 37,959
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,439
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   739
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                49,463
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              23,593
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,191
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           25,272
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,182
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  41
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 17,533
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,670
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,670
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,045
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.12
<LOANS-NON>                                        983
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,272
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    45
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,531
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,019
<RECOVERIES>                                       328
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,022
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,336
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,686
        

</TABLE>
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 A1 06 0 . MONI C A BROW N v

. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT.

Th i s act i o n b eg an as a d i s p o s s es s ory p ro ceed in g in m ag i s t rat e co u rt , wh i ch
t ran s ferred t h e cas e t o t h e s u p eri o r co u rt

. On Sep t em b er 2 2 , 2 0 1 7 , t h e s u p eri o r co u rt i s su ed a fi n al o rd er g ran ti n g t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s m o t i o n t o i s s ue a wri t of p os s es s i o n an d d en y i n g d efen d an t Mo n i ca Bro wn ’ s m o t i o n t o fi l e ex h i b i t s u n der s eal

. Bro wn fi l ed

a n o t i ce o f ap p eal o n Oct ob er 2 0 , 2 0 1 7. W e l ack ju ri sd i ct i o n

. Gen eral ly , a no t i ce of ap p eal m u st be fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 day s o f en t ry o f t h e o rd er

s o u g ht t o b e ap p eal ed

. See O CGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). Th e un d erl y i n g s u b ject m at t er o f an ap p eal , h o wev er, co n t ro ls o v er t h e rel i ef so u gh t in d et erm i n in g t he p ro p er ap p el l at e p ro ced ure. See Reb ich v. Mi l es , 2 6 4 G a. 4 6 7, 4 6 7 -4 6 8 (4 4 8 SE2 d 1 9 2 ) (1 9 9 4 ). Th e

u n d erl y i n g s u b

ject m at t er h ere i s a d i s p o s s es so ry ju dg m en t

. Un d er OCGA § 4 4 -7 -5 6,
ap p eal s in d i s p o s s es s o ry act i o n s m u st be fi led wi t h i n s e v e n d ay s o f t h e d at e t h e ju d g m en t was en t ered

. See R a y M. W ri g h t , In c. v. Jo n es , 2 3 9 Ga. Ap p

. 5 2 1 , 5 2 2 -5 2 3 (5 2 1 SE2 d 4 5 6 ) (1 9 9 9 ). Th e p ro p er an d t i m e l y f i l in g o f a n o t i ce o f ap p eal i s an ab s o lu t e req u i rem en t t o co nfer ju ri s d i ct i o n o n t h i s Co u rt

. Id

. at 5 2 3

. Bro wn ’ s n o t i ce

o f ap p eal i s u n t im el y , as i t was fi l ed 2 8 d ay s aft er en try o f th e o rd er s h e s eek s to ap p eal . Acco rd i n gl y , t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y th a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. June 21, 2018

06/21/2018
#### § 526.307 [Reserved]