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

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

STANLEY TARRAND

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 15

- 4400

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 10, 2016

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumter County

, William H. Hallman, II I , Judge.

Stanley Tarrand, Avon Park, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Stanley Tarrand appeals an order denying his success ive motion for

postconvic ti on relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We

affirm.

Ta rrand contends that his fifty

- one

- year sentence , agreed to as part of a plea

agreement, for second

- degree murder

, committed in 1994 when he was fifteen years old

,2

is a de facto life sentence that does not provide a meaningful opportunity for relief

.

Tarr and argues that h is sentence is unconstitutional under the holding s of Miller v.

Alabama , 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)

, and Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48 (2010) , and seeks

resentencing pursuant to section 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2015). The trial court

denied Tarrand’s motion

, holding that he “is eligible for early release

, ” and “ has failed to

show that his sentence exceeds his life expectancy and is thus a de facto life sentence.”

Because Tarrand committed his crime in 1994, he is, as the trial court c orrectly fo und,

eligib le for early release, due to his potentia l to accrue significant gain time. 1 See §

921 .00 1 (1 0 ) ( b ) 2. , Fla. Stat. ( 1994 ). Thus, because he has a meaningful opportunity for

early release, we affirm the trial court’s order.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA , ORFINGER and COHEN , JJ., concur.

1 Tarrand will be sixty

- six years old if he serves one hundred percent of his sentence. However, because he is eligible for early release, his tentative release date is in 2019 when he will be forty

- one

- years old. Accordingly, we do not address whether

Ta rrand’s sentence is a de facto life sentence.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Michael C. Mayer, certify that:1) I have reviewed this annual report on Amendment Number Two to Form 10-K of Bank ofCommerce Holdings (the “registrant”);2) Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervisions, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;b. [Paragraph reserved pursuant to SEC Release 33-8238];c. evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd. disclosed in this report any change in the issuer’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and;5. The issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors and theaudit committee of issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.*/s/*MICHAEL C. MAYERMichael C. Mayer
HomeUnder Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs...Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs  Releases

# Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Releases

51 items

        -    Remarks  		Remarks at 20 Days of Mariupol Film Screening	  Elizabeth M. AllenFebruary 27, 2024U.S. Department of StateWashington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Elizabeth M. Allen’s Travel to Jordan, Sri Lanka, and India	  February 16, 2024 
        -    Remarks  		Remarks at Society of the Snow Film Screening and Reception	  Elizabeth M. AllenFebruary 7, 2024Motion Picture AssociationWashington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Allen Travels to Rhode Island to Celebrate One-Year Anniversary of Welcome Corps and to Visit U.S. Naval War College	  January 24, 2024 
        -    Interview  		“Smart Women, Smart Power”: A Podcast Interview Between Under Secretary of State Elizabeth M. Allen and CSIS Senior Fellow Dr. Kathleen McInnis	  Elizabeth M. AllenJanuary 11, 2024Center for Strategic and International StudiesWashington, D.C. 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken at a Memorandum of Understanding Signing Ceremony with the Smithsonian Institution	  Antony J. BlinkenDecember 19, 2023Benjamin Franklin RoomWashington, DC 
        -    Notice to the Press  		Secretary Blinken to Deliver Remarks and Sign Memorandum of Understanding with the Smithsonian Institution 	  December 15, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Remarks at the Opening of the U.S.-ASEAN Center	  Elizabeth M. AllenDecember 14, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Allen Opens the U.S.-ASEAN Center in Washington, D.C.	  December 14, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		U.S. Signs Memorandum of Cooperation with Japan on Countering Foreign Information Manipulation	  December 6, 2023 

previous page1234…6next page

Back to Top
comments Hamilton, Cary

to: Jack Faulk 01/28/2010 05:10 PM Show Details

Good Evening Mr. Faulk,

It was great to have met you in Dalla s and put a face with all the emails.

I just wanted to convey the sa me message that I expressed to Mr. Page and Mr. Keily over the phone this week. Right now the state of NM has co nfirmed just over 5,000 miles of ditch, canals and laterals. After talking to WRRI (Water Re sources and Research Institute) in NM the figure is go ing to be much greater. A conservative estimate may be between 15,000 to 30,000 miles of di tch, canals and laterals. We will have a more accurate number by next Friday. We are extracting information from USDA data for NM via arc view and satellite imagery to add up the total number of miles of water ways in NM. We would fill more comfortable with a trigger being around 200 to 300 linear miles instead of the 50 linear miles.

Thank you for your time,

Cary C.S. Hamilton Registration Program Manager New Mexico Department of Agriculture Agricultural & Environmental Services Pesticide Compliance Section Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005 chamilton@nmda.nmsu.edu Office 575-646-7049 Cell 575-636-4514 Fax 575-646-5977 Page 1 of 1

5/11/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web2790.htm
A~~~~~~~....------ Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. _ HVAC Advanced Products Division

3400 Lawrenceville-Suwanee Road, Suwanee, GA 30024

October 7, 2010

Via Email

u.s. Department of Energy

Email: exoartecommunications@hq,doe,gov

RE: Ex Parte Communication

On October 5, 2010, Paul Doppel and Pete Saiavantis of Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.

("MEUS") met with Department of Energy ("DOE") officials, Laura Barhydt, Ashley Armstrong and Celia

Sher,

At the meeting, MEUS provided an overview of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) HVAC systems and

information regarding the deveiopment of testing standards and certification requirements included in

the Air-conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 1230 and American Society of

Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90,1-2010.

The discussion centered around the complexities of the VRF systems and the challenges with testing

such systems due to the extremeiy large number of outdoor unit and indoor unit combinations, Because

the outdoor unit is the primary efficiency driver, several years ago DOE and AHRI developed an

appropriate definition of "tested combination" to provide representative combinations of the ducted

indoor units and the highest sales volume family of non-ducted indoor units, This definition is used to

define the systems for testing purposes and to determine the capacities and efficiencies of each VRF

outdoor unit

Additional discussion topics included the energy savings aspects of VRF systems, the definition of a basic

modei group at AHRI for VRF systems, and the impact of single module and combined module outdoor

units on the quantity of tests required to meet an acceptable level for a certification program,

Paul Doppel

Director of Factory Liaison and Government Affairs

Mitsubishi Eiectric & Electronics USA, Inc.

HVAC Advanced Products Division

Direct Phone: 678-376-2923

Email: odoppel@hvac.mea.com
§ 700.13 Nondiscrimination. ( a ) No one entering upon FLETC property shall discriminate against or harass any other person on such property, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability, Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination and is expressly prohibited.
( b ) Appropriate action will be taken against any person who violates any discrimination prohibition contained in paragraph (a) of this section. However, this section does not create any legal rights enforceable against the Department of the Treasury, its officers, or employees, or any other person. Although this section does not create any enforceable rights, actions in violation of the section may still result in civil or criminal action in accordance with applicable laws.
#### Marcelline BRENNAN, et al., Appellants, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, Appellee.

Nos. 80-2510, 80-2512.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 1, 1981.

William Huggett, Greene & Cooper and Joan M. Bolotin, Miami, for appellants.

Robert A. Ginsburg, County Atty. and Susan Trench, Asst. County Atty., for ap-pellee.

Before SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ. and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of *Pinakatt v. Mercy Hospital, Inc.,*394 So.2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); *Ferrante v. Waters,*383 So.2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); *Neida’s Boutique, Inc. v. Gabor & Co.,*348 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
§ 6.6 Allowable fees and other expenses. ( a ) The following fees and other expenses are allowable under the Act: ( 1 ) Reasonable expenses of expert witnesses;
( 2 ) Reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, or project which the agency finds necessary for the preparation of the party's case;
( 3 ) Reasonable attorney or agent fees.
( b ) The amount of fees awarded will be based upon the prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of services furnished, except that ( 1 ) Compensation for an expert witness will not exceed the highest rate paid by the agency for expert witnesses; and
( 2 ) Attorney or agent fees will not be in excess of $75 per hour.
PUBLIC LAW 110–287—JULY 29, 2008 122 STAT. 2649 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 93 (S.J. Res. 41): 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

July 23, considered and passed House. 

July 24, considered and passed Senate. 

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 44 (2008): 

July 29, Presidential remarks. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–287 

110th Congress 

Joint Resolution 

Approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom 

and Democracy Act of 2003. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress approves the renewal of the import 

restrictions contained in section 3(a)(1) of the Burmese Freedom 

and Democracy Act of 2003. 

(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—This joint resolution shall be 

deemed to be a ‘‘renewal resolution’’ for purposes of section 9 

of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. 

SEC. 2. CERTAIN COBRA FEES. 

Section 13031(j)(3)(B)(i) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)(B)(i)) is amended 

by striking ‘‘September 30, 2017’’ and inserting ‘‘October 7, 2017’’. 

SEC. 3. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES. 

The percentage under subparagraph (C) of section 401(1) of 

the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 in 

effect on the date of the enactment of this Act is increased by 

0.25 percentage points. 

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

This joint resolution and the amendments made by this joint 

resolution shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 

joint resolution or July 26, 2008, whichever occurs first. 

Approved July 29, 2008. 

19 USC 58c note. 

26 USC 6655 

note. 

50 USC 1701 

note. 

July 29, 2008 

[H.J. Res. 93] 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLAW
No. 99-8589.

#### Alvarez *v.*Washington.

Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.
EX-10.18.1



 Exhibit 10.18.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made this 31st day of December 2008 between BIOMET, INC., an Indiana corporation (“Biomet”), and Robin
T. Barney (“Executive”). All capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement (defined below), unless otherwise defined herein. 

WHEREAS, Biomet and Executive entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated as of September 2, 2008 (the “Employment
Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, Biomet and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement on the terms and conditions
set forth herein; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Biomet and Executive hereby agree as follows: 
 1.
Section 9(e): Termination by the Company Other Than For Cause, Death or Disability, or by the Executive for Good Reason, Following a Change of Control. Section 9(e)(i) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to delete
the final sentence of Section 9(e)(i) in its entirety and replace it with the following: 
 “The total amount of the
Change of Control Severance Benefit will be paid: (1) if the Change in Control constitutes a change in control event within the meaning of Treasury Regulation 1.409A-3(i)(5), in a lump sum as soon as administratively practicable (but in no
event later than 30 days) following the Date of Termination or (2) if the Change of Control does not constitute a change in control event within the meaning of Treasury Regulation 1.409A-3(i)(5), in equal, ratable installments in accordance
with the Company’s regular payroll policies over the course of the Non-Compete Period.” 
 2. Miscellaneous.
Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this First Amendment
to Employment Agreement on the date first set forth above. 
  

			
	BIOMET, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Bradley J. Tandy
		 	Bradley J. Tandy
		 	Senior Vice President,
		 	General Counsel & Secretary


  

			
	EXECUTIVE
		
		 	/s/ Robin T. Barney
	Name:	 	Robin T. Barney
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Regarding Annual Report on Form 10-K for the quarter ended December 31, 2002


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Redding Bancorp, a California Corporation (the
company), does certify that:



| | 1. |  | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the quarter
ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and
| | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. |  | Information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of the
Company.                                                                      

Dated: February 27, 2003

|                                    |  |                                       
|----------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael C. Mayer                |  | /s/ Linda J. Miles                    
|Michael C. Mayer                    |  | Linda J. Miles                        
|President & Chief Executive Officer |  | Executive VP & Chief Financial Officer
#### Paul D. OTTERSON and the Travelers Indemnity Company, a Connecticut corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellants, v. Jimmie William WILSON, and Leona Edna Wilson, Individually and as husband and wife, Appellees.

Nos. 74-285, 74-286, 74-294, 74-296.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 7, 1974.

Rehearing Denied May 28, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 41012 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CRAIG DWAYNE TOBIAS, also known as Jim , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 205

- 1

Before J ONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Craig Dwayne Tobias has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Tobias has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Tobias ’ s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 21 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce C lerk Case: 14-41012 Document: 00513555616 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2016No. 14

- 41012

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motio n for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-41012 Document: 00513555616 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2497 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2497

               To amend the National Labor Relations Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 18, 1995

 Mr. Hoekstra introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
          Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To amend the National Labor Relations Act.

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

SECTION 1. PROPERTY ACCESS.

    Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act is amended by 
adding after ``section 7'' the following: ``Provided, That an employer 
is not required to allow access to its business property to employees 
or nonemployees for purposes of union organizing, solicitation, 
distribution, picketing, or other union advocacy or activities, even if 
the employer allows such access to organizations for charitable, civic, 
or religious purposes.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Hollis H. SINGLETON and/or Hollis M. Singleton, Sr., Defendant and Appellee.

No. 12241.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Nov. 20, 1978.

*603Joseph A. Reilly, Jr., Houma, for plaintiff and appellant.

Jude T. Fanguy, Houma, for defendant and appellee.

Before LANDRY, COVINGTON and PONDER, JJ.

PONDER, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a denial of recov- • ery of property damage under a subrogation agreement.

The issue is: Is the contributory negligence of an employee driving a company car not in the course and scope of his employment imputable to the employer so as to bar recovery by the latter’s insurer from a negligent third party. We reverse and render.

We accept the lower court’s finding that the employee and defendant’s son were negligent and that the negligence of both caused the accident.

However, the employee was proceeding in a company car to a softball game after working hours. There was no evidence or finding that the employee was acting for his employer at the time of the accident. The court simply made a statement that if the employee could not recover the employer’s insurer could not recover. We disagree.

Negligence is imputed to an employer by LSA-C.C. Art. 2320, which reads as follows:

> “Masters and employers are answerable for the damage occasioned by their servants and overseers, in the exercise of the functions in which they are employed. “Teachers and artisans are answerable for the damage caused by their scholars or apprentices, while under their superintendence.

> “In the above cases, responsibility only attaches, when the masters or employers, teachers and artisans, might have prevented the act which caused the damage, and have not done it.”

We conclude that the employee was not in the exercise of the function in which he was employed. There is, therefore, no imputation of negligence to the employer. Defendant does not contend the employer was primarily negligent. Therefore, there is no bar to recovery by the plaintiff from one of two tort feasors.

The judgment dismissing plaintiff’s suit is reversed. There is now judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $325.80 plus interest and costs. The costs of this appeal are cast against the defendant.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.