alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Willie Jasper DARDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-152.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 24, 1975.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, Sarasota, Harold H. Moore, Asst. Public Defender, and Steven H. Denman, Legal Intern, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

McNULTY, Chief Judge.

Following pleas of nolo contendere, and pursuant to negotiations, appellant was sentenced to a general twenty year sentence for convictions of robbery, assault with intent to commit first degree murder with firearms and use of a firearm while committing a felony.

The sentencing insofar as it was for use of a firearm in commission of a felony was improper,' being part of the same transaction as the robbery ,1

The general twenty year sentence is within the maximum for the aggregate of the remaining two crimes for which appellant was adjudicated guilty, the maximum sentence for robbery being life and for assault with intent to commit murder being fifteen years imprisonment. How-ever, the very imposition of a general sentence presents various potential problems. These problems were discussed in Benson v. United States2 which vacated a general sentence within the maximum of the crimes for which appellant was convicted and remanded for resentencing. Although this court has previously held a general *582sentence involving less than the maximum sentence to be harmless error,3 we are now persuaded by the reasoning in *Benson, supra,*that the error is not harmless.

Therefore, the convictions are affirmed but the general twenty year sentence is hereby vacated.. The case is remanded for resentencing, apportioning the negotiated twenty year sentence between the robbery and assault with intent to commit murder convictions.

HOBSON and GRIMES, JJ., concur.

1

. Cone v. State (Fla.1973), 285 So.2d 12.

2

. (5th Cir. 1963), 332 F.2d 288.

3

. *See*Warncke v. State (Fla.App.2d, 1971), 247 So.2d 27.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GUNNAR DERRY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 165 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of July, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
§ 423.154 Appropriate dispensing of prescription drugs in long-term care facilities under PDPs and MA-PD plans. ( a ) *In general.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, when dispensing covered Part D drugs to enrollees who reside in long-term care facilities, a Part D sponsor must— ( 1 ) Require all pharmacies servicing long-term care facilities, as defined in § 423.100 to— ( i ) Dispense solid oral doses of brand-name drugs, as defined in § 423.4, to enrollees in such facilities in no greater than 14-day increments at a time;
( ii ) Permit the use of uniform dispensing techniques for Part D drugs dispensed to enrollees in long-term care facilities under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section as defined by each of the long-term care facilities in which such enrollees reside; and
( 2 ) Not penalize long-term care facilities' choice of more efficient uniform dispensing techniques described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section by prorating dispensing fees based on days' supply or quantity dispensed.
( 3 ) Ensure that any difference in payment methodology among long-term care pharmacies incentivizes more efficient dispensing techniques.
( 4 ) Collect and report information, in a form and manner specified by CMS, on the dispensing methodology used for each dispensing event described by paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) *Exclusions.* CMS excludes from the requirements under paragraph (a) of this section— ( 1 ) Solid oral doses of antibiotics; or
( 2 ) Solid oral doses that are dispensed in their original container as indicated in the Food and Drug Administration Prescribing Information or are customarily dispensed in their original packaging to assist patients with compliance (for example, oral contraceptives).
( c ) *Waivers.* CMS waives the requirements under paragraph (a) of this section, except paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) o this section, for pharmacies when they service intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ICFs/IID) and institutes for mental disease (IMDs) as defined in § 435.1010 and for I/T/U pharmacies (as defined in § 423.100).
( d ) *Applicability date.* The applicability date for this section is January 1, 2013. Nothing precludes a Part D sponsor and pharmacy from mutually agreeing to an earlier implementation date.
( e ) *Unused drugs returned to the pharmacy.* The terms and conditions that must be offered by a Part D sponsor under § 423.120(a)(5) must include provisions that address the disposal of drugs that have been dispensed to an enrollee in a long-term care facility but not used and which have been returned to the pharmacy, in accordance with Federal and State regulations, as well as whether return for credit and reuse is authorized where permitted under State law.
[76 FR 21573, Apr. 15, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 7963, Feb. 12, 2015; 88 FR 22337, Apr. 12, 2023]
# C_2005248EN.01000101.xml

| 7.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 248/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 248/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 October 2005

(2005/C 248/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2061 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,30 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4613 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68175 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3108 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5460 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 74,02 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8735 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9560 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5731 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,749 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 251,75 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6963 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9475 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5752 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,55 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,960 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6420 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5929 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4261 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3538 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7301 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0318 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 256,64 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,9057 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7598 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3973 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 151,46 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,549 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,331 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,4300 |
| THB | Thai baht | 49,428 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2061

JPY

Japanese yen

137,30

DKK

Danish krone

7,4613

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68175

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3108

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5460

ISK

Iceland króna

74,02

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8735

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9560

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5731

CZK

Czech koruna

29,749

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

251,75

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6963

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9475

RON

Romanian leu

3,5752

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,55

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,960

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6420

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5929

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4261

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3538

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7301

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0318

KRW

South Korean won

1 256,64

ZAR

South African rand

7,9057

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7598

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3973

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 151,46

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,549

PHP

Philippine peso

67,331

RUB

Russian rouble

34,4300

THB

Thai baht

49,428

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly report of Capital Gold Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gifford A. Dieterle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

                                        /s/ Gifford A. Dieterle
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Gifford A. Dieterle
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        March  17, 2005
# C_2006036EN.01001802.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/18

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 27 October 2005

in Case C-234/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel in Minister van Sociale Zaken, Staatssecretaris voor volksgezondheid v BVBA De Backer (1)

1

(Preliminary references - Not admissible)

(2006/C 36/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-234/05: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium), made by decision of 25 May 2005, received at the Court on 27 May 2005, in the proceedings between Minister van Sociale Zaken, Staatssecretaris voor volksgezondheid and BVBA De Backer — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J. Malenovský, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 27 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Hof van beroep te Brussel by decision of 25 May 2005 is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 205 of 20.8.2005

1

---
First Amendment to 2005 Incentive Stock Plan



 Exhibit 10.15 
 First Amendment to 
 Stericycle, Inc. 2005 Incentive Stock Plan 
 The Stericycle, Inc. 2005 Incentive Stock Plan (the “Plan”) is amended as follows pursuant to the authority of the Board of Directors of
Stericycle, Inc. under Paragraph 8.3 of the Plan: 
  

	 	1.	Amendment of Paragraph 4.5 

 Paragraph 4.5 of the
Plan is amended to read as follows: 
 4.5 Individual Limit on Awards 
 The maximum number of shares of Common Stock for which Awards may be granted to any Eligible Person in a calendar year shall not exceed
200,000 shares, taking into account all grants and awards under other stock option and equity compensation plans of the Company (other than the Company’s bonus conversion program). This maximum shall be subject to the capitalization adjustments
under Paragraph 4.6. 
  

	 	2.	Effective Date 

 This Amendment shall be effective
as of February 11, 2009.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, G. Steven Farris, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Apache Offshore Investment Partnership; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis 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 thisreport; 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        /s/ G. Steven FarrisG. Steven Farris  President, Chief Executive Officer and
# C_2005329EN.01001501.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/15

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — DG INFSO — MEDIA 13/2005

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

MEDIA PLUS

MEDIA PLUS

Support for the transnational distribution of European films — the ‘automatic’ scheme

(2005/C 329/11)

1.   Objectives and description

This call for proposals is based on Council Decision 2000/821/EC on the implementation of a programme encouraging the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (Media Plus — Development, distribution and promotion 2001 — 2005), adopted by the Council on 20 December 2000 and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 17 January 2001 (OJ L 13, pages 34-43). The proposal to prolong the MEDIA Program until 31 December 2006 was approved by the Council of Ministers on 26 April 2004.

Official Journal of the European Communities

The measures covered by the Decision include support for the transnational distribution of European cinema films.

2.   Eligible applicants

This notice is addressed to European distribution companies whose activities contribute to the attainment of the above objectives.

Applicants must be established in one of the following countries:

| — | the 25 countries of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

the 25 countries of the European Union,

| — | the EFTA countries, |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFTA countries,

| — | the candidate country for EU membership: Bulgaria. |
| --- | --- |

—

the candidate country for EU membership: Bulgaria.

3.   Budget and duration of projects

The financial assistance from the Commission may in no case exceed 60 % of the total eligible costs.

The maximum duration of the projects is 6 (module 3) or 16 (modules 1 and 2) months.

4.   Deadline for submission of applications

Applications must be submitted to the Commission by no later than 30 April 2006.

30 April 2006

5.   Full details

The full text of the call for proposals, together with the application forms, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/media/distr_en.html.

Applications must comply with all the terms of the guidelines and be submitted on the forms provided.

---
Exhibit
      32












**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report
      of Presidential Associates I Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”), on Form
      10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
      1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.








Date:       November
                  14, 2007
              
              /s/ Eggert
                DagbjartssonEggert
                DagbjartssonChief
                  Executive Officer


Date:       November
                  14, 2007
              
              /s/ Andrew
                PragueAndrew
                PragueChief
                  Financial Officer
#### BECKER, POLIAKOFF & STREITFELD, P.A.; Alan Becker and Gary S. Poliakoff, individually, Appellants, v. Peter S. SACHS, Appellee.

No. 80-1325.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 20, 1981.

Schwartz, Klein & Steinhardt and Jay S. Weiss, Miami, for appellants.

Patterson, Maloney, Blyler & Feige and Hans C. Feige, Fort Lauderdale, for appel-lee.

HENDRY and Before BARKDULL, BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of appellee in his counterclaim upon our finding that the counterclaim should have accompanied the transfer of the claim for damages to Broward County where a prior action is pending. See *Ven-Fuel*v. *Jacksonville Electric Authority,*332 So.2d 81 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); *Zuckerman-Vernon Corp. v. Zelikoff,*303 So.2d 391 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); *McCue v. Lane,*228 So.2d 101 (Fla.3d DCA 1969).
Ninth Amendment



 Exhibit 10.19 
 NINTH AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Ninth Amendment to Employment Agreement is
made and entered into effective as of December 10, 2008, by and between WATSCO, INC., a Florida corporation (hereinafter called the “Company”), and ALBERT H. NAHMAD (hereinafter called the “Employee”).

 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement effective as of January 31, 1996 (the “Employment Agreement”) pursuant to which the Employee renders certain services to the Company; and

 WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors amended the Employment Agreement effective as of
January 1, 2001, January 1, 2002, January 1, 2003, January 1, 2004, January 1, 2005, January 1, 2006, January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008; and  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee now desire to amend the Employment Agreement to make certain modifications thereunder. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth in this Ninth Amendment, and other good and valuable
consideration, the parties to this Ninth Amendment agree as follows: 
 1. All capitalized terms in this Ninth Amendment shall have the same
meaning as in the Employment Agreement, unless otherwise specified. 
 2. Section 6 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to
read as follows: 
 “6. EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT. 
 Upon submission of proper proof of payment by Employee, the Company will reimburse him for all reasonable expenditures for business travel
or entertainment made by him in the course of and pursuant to the business of the Company, and reimbursements of any amounts that may be taxable to Employee are to be made prior to the end of the year following the year in which the expenses are
incurred.” 
 3. Paragraph B of Section III to Exhibit A of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 

“B. Payment of Performance Based Compensation. Performance Based
Compensation shall be paid to the Executive on or before the March 15th that immediately follows the end of the year for which it is payable
and the Compensation Committee shall certify that the performance goals have been met prior to such payment.” 







 4. All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain the same. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Ninth Amendment to be duly executed effective as of the day and year first above written.

  

			
	COMPANY:
	
	WATSCO, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Barry S. Logan

		 	Barry S. Logan, Senior Vice President
	
	EMPLOYEE:
	
	 /s/ Albert H. Nahmad

	Albert H. Nahmad
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BULLETIN 1098
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PLATE 2

EXPLANATION

Mine adit

Dump trom mi

Oo

‘Mine building

‘or prospect pit
pit

Detailed sample traverse

Ss
Location of Vindicator vein
Dashed where uncertan
° 0-39
© 40-78
© 20-159

160-319
320-639

Location of soil sample
Containing 2 lead concentration in parts per milion in
the range indicated Acwuel concentrations are

Topography by Harold Bloom [
Sie Toot

MAP SHOWING LEAD CONCENTRATION IN SOIL AT THE VINDICATOR MINE, SHOSHONE COUNTY, IDAHO

200 ° 200 400 FEET

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET 550998 O - 61 (In pocket) No, 2
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7409
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HASSAAN HAAKIM RASHAAD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-01-195) Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hassaan Haakim Rashaad, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Magee Tompkins, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Hassaan Haakim Rashaad appeals the district court’s order denying Rashaad’s motion for production of transcripts at Government expense. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Rashaad , No. CR-01-195 (W.D.N.C. filed Aug. 18, 2003 & entered Aug. 19, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED