alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Orlando HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-2158.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 27, 1979.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1979.

Orlando Hernandez; in pro. per.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Paul Mendel-son, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Orlando Hernandez, appeals the summary denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to Fla.R. Cr.P. 3.850. We reverse.

For the second ground in his motion to vacate, Hernandez alleged that the prosecutor knowingly used the perjured testimony of the victim and the investigating police officers with respect to material matters.

The law is well established that the willful use of false testimony upon material matters from prosecution witnesses by the prosecutor known by the latter to be perjured testimony is a recognized ground for relief from judgment. *Bogan v. State,*211 So.2d 74, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).

After a review of Hernandez’s motion for relief from judgment on the above ground and the documentary evidence in support thereof (i. e. the transcripts of testimony of his trial and the separate trial of his co-defendants made available to this court), we conclude that Hernandez has made a prima facie showing for relief and is entitled to a full evidentiary hearing thereon. Nevertheless, this determination is in no way to be construed as passing upon the merits with respect thereto.

We find no error in the summary denial of the instant motion to vacate on the first ground alleged.

Accordingly, the cause is remanded to the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion concerning the allegations of the use of perjured testimony. See Fla.R. App.P. 9.140(g) and *Bogan v. State, supra.*

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

AFS-12-029-P

November 7, 2012

Mr. Matt Scribner

Vice President of Operations

Inogen, Inc.

326 Bollay Drive

Goleta, CA 93117

Dear Mr. Scribner:

In your October 12, 2011, letter, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) to amend Special Federal Aviation Regulation 106, Section 2 and Section 3(a) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This amendment would include the 

Inogen, Inc., One G3 Portable Oxygen Concentrator (POC) as an approved POC for on

board aircraft.

The FAA amended SFAR 106 on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63217) to add the following

POC devices that may be carried on and used by a passenger on board an aircraft: 

 AirSep Focus

 AirSep Freestyle 5

 Inogen One G3

 Inova Labs LifeChoice Activox

 Respironics Simply Go

 Precision Medical EasyPulse

 SeQual SAROS

Therefore, we will take no further action on this petition and Docket No. FAA-2011-1138

is being closed.

Sincerely,

/s/

Ida M. Klepper

Manager, Airmen and 

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
II

Calendar No. 462

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2982

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 15, 1996

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

JUNE 25, 1996

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Carbon

Hill National Fish Hatchery to the State of Alabama.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Carbon Hill National

5 Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF CARBON HILL NATIONAL FISH

7 HATCHERY TO THE STATE OF ALABAMA.

8 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENT.—Within 180 days

9 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
2

HR 2982 RS

1 of the Interior shall convey to the State of Alabama with2 out reimbursement, all right, title, and interest of the

3 United States in and to the property described in sub4 section (b), for use by the Game and Fish Division of the

5 Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Re6 sources, as part of the State of Alabama fish culture pro7 gram.

8 (b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property referred

9 to in subsection (a) is the property known as the Carbon

10 Hill National Fish Hatchery, located on County Road 63

11 at Carbon Hill, Alabama, in Walker County, Alabama,

12 consisting of 67 acres (more or less), and all improvements

13 and related personal property under the control of the Sec14 retary that is located on that property, including build15 ings, structures, equipment, and all easements, leases, and

16 water rights relating to that property.

17 (c) USE AND REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—The prop18 erty conveyed to the State of Alabama pursuant to this

19 section shall be used by the State for purposes of fishery

20 resources management and fisheries-related activities, and

21 if it is used for any other purpose detrimental to those

22 purposes and activities, all right, title, and interest in and

23 to all property conveyed pursuant to this section shall re24 vert to the United States. The State of Alabama shall en25 sure that the property reverting to the United States is
3

HR 2982 RS

1 in substantially the same or better condition as at the time

2 of transfer.

Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
Calendar No. 462

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2982

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey

State of Alabama.the Carbon Hill National Fish Hatchery to the

JUNE 25, 1996

Reported without amendment
Document

Exhibit 10.1

FIRST MODIFICATION
TO THE
NATIONAL CINEMEDIA, INC.
2016 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


2018 RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT
Performance Period: Fiscal Year 2018 – Fiscal Year 2020
First Modification Effective February 28, 2021
The 2018 Restricted Stock Agreement, for the Performance Period Fiscal Year 2018 – Fiscal Year 2020 between National CineMedia, Inc. and Grantee (the “Agreement”) is modified as follows effective February 28, 2021.  Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement.
The Vesting Schedule of Restricted Free Cash Flow Restricted Stock and Digital Revenue Restricted Stock contained in Section A. Notice of Grant in the Agreement is amended by removing the actual and target Free Cash Flow related to fiscal year 2020 and Digital Revenue for the purposes of determining the actual and target Free Cash Flow and Digital Revenue under the Agreement, subject to the Grantee’s continued Service through the Vesting Date. The Vesting Date will remain unchanged.
Except as set forth above, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unaffected by this First Modification.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,
Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement Megan K. Cavanagh,
Justices 

# Order

March 22, 2019

158854

SC: 158854
In re I.M. LONG, Minor. COA: 344326 Oakland CC Family Division: 2017

- 849503

- NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 20, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The petitioner

- appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether the Court of Appeals clearly erred in reversing the trial court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction over the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(2), where the child was living with a guardian and there was no evidence that the guardian’s home was unfit, yet there w as evidence that the respondent

- father is incarcerated and had a history of criminal conduct; (2) whether the Court of Appeals clearly erred in reversing the trial court’s additional decision to exercise jurisdiction over the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.2 (b)(6), based on the respondent

- father ’s conduct in the two years preceding the filing of the petition when he was a putative, not legal, father; and (3) whether the trial court’s reliance on In re LE, 278 Mich App 1 (2008), was misplaced. In addition to the brief, the petitioner

- appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the b rief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required by M CR 7.312(B)(1). The respondent

appellee shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the petitioner

app ellant’s brief. The respondent

- appellee sha ll also electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the petitioner

- appellant. The lawyer

- guardian ad litem for the minor child is invited to file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the petitioner

- appellant’s brief. A reply, if any, must be filed by the petitioner

- appellant within 14 days of b eing served with the respondent

appellee ’s brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application

papers.I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 22, 2019

s0319 2

Clerk The Children’s Law and Family Law Sections of the State Bar of Michigan, the UDM Juvenile Appellate Practice Clinic, and the University of Michigan Law School

Child Advoca cy Law Clinic are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
#### Ex Parte: State of Alabama, Ex Rel. Attorney General. (Re: Tyrone P. GRAY, alias v. STATE of Alabama).

79-678.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 15, 1980.

FAULKNER, Justice.

WRIT DENIED-NO OPINION.

TORBERT, C. J., and JONES, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
# Dominican Republic

106 items

        -    Report  		Dominican Republic	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Cases Filed Against the United States	   
        -    		Nationals of Peru Victimized by the Stanford Ponzi Scheme v. United States of America	   
        -    		Cases Filed Against the United States	   
        -    		Costa Rican and Dominican Victims of the Stanford Ponzi Scheme v. United States of America	   
        -    		Cases Filed Against the Dominican Republic	   
        -    		Michael Ballantine, Lisa Ballantine, and Rachel Ballantine v. The Dominican Republic	   
        -    		Dominican Republic	  April 23, 2019 
        -    Report  		Dominican Republic	  March 13, 2019 
        -    		Caribbean Basin Security Initiative: Dominican Republic	   

previous page1…67891011next page

Back to Top
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Nestor L. SOSA v. Nestor CURRAULT, Judge, 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana.

No. 55176.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 20, 1974.

In re: Nestor L. Sosa applying for Writs of Mandamus and Habeas Corpus.

Writ denied. The relief prayed for has been granted making this application moot.
# C_2005245EN.01000201.xml

| 5.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3960 — Barclays Private Equity/Alstom Power Conversion)

(2005/C 245/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 26 September 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3960. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3960. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# North Korea

439 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 23, 2021	  Jalina PorterJuly 23, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 22, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 21, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 9, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 9, 2021Washington, DC 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 8, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 8, 2021Washington, DC 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 6, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 6, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 1, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 1, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: North Korea	  July 1, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – June 30, 2021	  Jalina PorterJune 30, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – June 22, 2021	  Ned PriceJune 22, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – June 21, 2021	  Ned PriceJune 21, 2021Washington, D.C.  

previous page1…3637383940…44next page

Back to Top
#### William E. WALKER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. Emanuel PUSHKIN, etc. et al., Appellees.

No. 74-815.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 5, 1975.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Mauro Tenesei, Appellant, v. Societa Italiano Abruzzo Citro Gabriele Rosetti, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of a District Court in favor of defendant.

Sewards & Sewards, for appellant.

Thomas J. Purdy, for respondent.

Per *Curiam.*

The justice, in rendering judgment for the defendant, decided that plaintiff had failed to- comply with the bylaws, and furthermore, that his sickness was not such as to prevent him from working. The return fails to show whether, the by-laws of the society were admitted in evidence, but the following appears towards the end of the stenographer’s minutes:

“Articles 67 and 71, and articles 80 and 82, to be looked at.” • We assume from this that; the said provisions were considered by both parties as having been admitted in evidence, and, therefore, a copy of the same should be annexed to .the return in order that we may determine whether such .finding of the justice is supported by the evidence. For these reasons a reargument must be ordered, ‘the return to be amended meanwhile. ■

Present: Beekmau, P. J., Gildebsleeve and Giegebich, JJ.

Reargument ordered, the return to be amended.
#### § 589.332 Railway sector of the Russian Federation economy.

The term *railway sector of the Russian Federation economy* includes the following activities and items produced in, sold from, purchased in, transiting, or distributed in the Russian Federation: The procurement, design, manufacture, construction, maintenance, repair, refurbishment, assembly, sale, purchase, distribution, and transportation of trains, locomotives, rail cars, and other equipment used to transport passengers and goods via trains; any materials that are used to manufacture trains or other means necessary to move the trains, such as railway lines, equipment, engineering, mechanical, or electrical systems or methods, or technology; and any infrastructure or services used to support railway operations, such as passenger ticketing and on-board food sales or services.
- DipNote Home
- About
- All Posts
- Browse by Topic

HomeAbout DipNote…DipNote

# 											DipNote									

The official blog of the U.S. Department of State

		Subscribe		

## Recent Stories

                -    April 12, 2024April 12, 2024Liberian Songs Amplify Calls for Justice Across West Africa
On March 5, Liberian legislators erupted in applause and song, chanting “war crimes court” and “we want justice!” The enth…
 
                -    April 4, 2024April 4, 2024Celebrating 75 Years of NATO
Today marks a significant milestone: the 75th anniversary of NATO.   When NATO was founded, President Truman envisioned it as a …
 
                -    April 1, 2024April 1, 2024Commemorating the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade
March 25 marked the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, and March 21 was…
 
                -    March 29, 2024March 29, 2024International Women of Courage Amplify Young Generation’s Voices
This March, the U.S. Department of State is celebrating remarkable women from around the world through the 18th annual Internation…
 
                -    March 21, 2024March 21, 2024From the Secretary’s Desk: Tackling the Synthetic Drug Crisis through Global Solutions
The devastation of synthetic drugs affects every town, every city, every state in the United States. More than 40% of Americans kn…
 
                -    March 14, 2024March 14, 2024U.S.-India: A Defining Partnership
President Biden has called the U.S.-India relationship “the defining partnership of the 21st century.”  Prime Minister Modi h…
 
                -    March 12, 2024March 12, 2024My Time as Special Presidential Envoy for Climate
It has been a tremendous honor to serve as President Biden’s Special Presidential Envoy for Climate.  I am sharing a few partin…
 
                Browse All

# FOLLOW @STATEDEPT

FacebookTwitterInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

                        - Office Home
                        - About Us
                        - Resources
                        - Frequently Asked Questions
                        - Contact Us

Back to Top
696 A.2d 126

#### BENSON ZION & ASSOCIATES, Appellant, v. Stephen and Marguerite J. LAGROSSA, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Nov. 19, 1996.

Jeffrey S. Wilson, Benson Zion Associates, for appellants.

David Weinberg, for appellees.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO and NEWMAN, JJ.

*156
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 24th day of July, 1997, the appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2809 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2809

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the requirement 
  that States pay unemployment compensation on the basis of services 
                     performed by election workers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 1995

   Mr. Upton (for himself and Mr. Farr of California) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the requirement 
  that States pay unemployment compensation on the basis of services 
                     performed by election workers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) paragraph (3) 
of section 3309(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
exception for certain services) is amended by striking ``or'' at the 
end of subparagraph (D), by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph 
(E), and by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(F) an election official or election worker if 
                the amount of remuneration reasonably expected to be 
                received by the individual during the calendar year for 
                services as an election official or election worker is 
                less than $200;''.
    (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to services 
performed after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Frances BRUNSON, Petitioner, v. John M. McCOY et al., Respondents.

No. 45694.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 25, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 16, 1975.

Larry Klein of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, West Palm Beach, and Stephen Marc Slepin of Kaplan, Schwartz & Slepin, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Richard A. Valeri of MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for respondents.

TENCH, Circuit Judge.

We have for consideration a petition for writ of certiorari directed to the Industrial Relations Commission, our jurisdiction arising under Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const., which provides that this Court “may issue writs of certiorari to commissions established by general law having statewide jurisdiction.”

The issue presented is whether the Industrial Relations Commission may review and reverse the Judge of Industrial Claims where the only evidence presented to the Judge of Industrial Claims is depositions of witnesses. We hold it may.

This issue was resolved in Mendivil v. Tampa Envelope Manufacturing Co., 233 So.2d 5 (Fla.1970), in which the Supreme Court stated:

> “. . . *all*evidence was submitted by deposition. The industrial judge did not personally see any of the witnesses. The *13Full Commission was, therefore, in as good a position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence as was the industrial judge.” [Emphasis not supplied]

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

ADKINS, C. J., ROBERTS, OVER-TON and ENGLAND, JJ., and ALDERMAN and MORPHONIOS, Circuit Judges, concur.