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

No. 77-995.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 5, 1978.

*873Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The point presented on this appeal urges error upon a contention that the trial court “permitted the prosecutor” to elicit testimony in a criminal prosecution for (1) burglary of a conveyance (a 1967 Chevrolet Van) and (2) grand larceny (miscellaneous items of personal property), where the defendant had invoked his right to remain silent at the time of his arrest. The record shows that two statements were made by the arresting officer, one during the State’s case and the other on rebuttal. The arresting officer first stated that the defendant was read his *Miranda*rights and then made the statement that he “ . . . hadn’t broken out the window, but that he would wait and make further statements in court.” Neither an objection nor a motion for mistrial was made. Then, on rebuttal, the officer further testified: “He just said that they had done it and they would answer any further questions in court.” Again, there was no objection or motion for mistrial.

We need not reach the question of whether the second part of each statement was the proper subject for a mistrial because of the failure to urge error in the trial court. See the recent consolidated opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in *Clark v. State*and *State v. Bostic,*363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978).

Affirmed.
# C_2006060EN.01001003.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/10

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

12 January 2006

in Case C-107/05 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/87/EC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 60/21)

Language of the case: Finnish

In Case C-107/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and P. Aalto) v Republic of Finland (Agent: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, G. Arestis and J. Klucka (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it:

| 1. | Declared that, by failing, with regard to the province of Åland, to adopt the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/87/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, the Finnish Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declared that, by failing, with regard to the province of Åland, to adopt the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/87/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, the Finnish Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Ordered the Finnish Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ordered the Finnish Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93 of 16.4.2005.

1

---
#### WALT DISNEY WORLD COMPANY and Employers Self-Insurance Service, Inc., Petitioners, v. AI DILLE et al., Respondents.

No. 46010.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 8, 1974.

Certiorari denied.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: In re Kerry Beal 

Appellate case number: 01-13-00348-CR

Trial court case number: 13DCR062478

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

Date motion filed: May 29, 2013

Party filing motion: Relator

The court of appeals is not required to issue a written opinion explaining its denial of 

mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief [in an original 

proceeding], the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”)

Beal’s motion for rehearing is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jim Sharp

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Massengale

Date: October 1, 2013
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNumerical solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for transonic afterbody flowsThe time dependent Navier-Stokes equations in mass averaged variables are solved for transonic flow over axisymmetric boattail plume simulator configurations. Numerical solution of these equations is accomplished with the unsplit explict finite difference algorithm of MacCormack. A grid subcycling procedure and computer code vectorization are used to improve computational efficiency. The two layer algebraic turbulence models of Cebeci-Smith and Baldwin-Lomax are employed for investigating turbulence closure. Two relaxation models based on these baseline models are also considered. Results in the form of surface pressure distribution for three different circular arc boattails at two free stream Mach numbers are compared with experimental data. The pressures in the recirculating flow region for all separated cases are poorly predicted with the baseline turbulence models. Significant improvements in the predictions are usually obtained by using the relaxation models.Document ID19810005408Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsSwanson, R. C., Jr.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1980Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TP-1784L-13826Accession Number81N13919Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-32-13-11Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19810005408.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 456.611 Reports on inspections. ( a ) The team must submit a report promptly to the agency on each inspection.
( b ) The report must contain the observations, conclusions, and recommendations of the team concerning— ( 1 ) The adequacy, appropriateness, and quality of all services provided in the facility or through other arrangements, including physician services to beneficiaries; and
( 2 ) Specific findings about individual beneficiaries in the facility.
( c ) The report must include the dates of the inspection and the names and qualifications of the members of the team.
[43 FR 45266, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 44 FR 56337, Oct. 1, 1979]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade

# 											International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade									

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

March 25, 2024

The transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans remains one of the most horrific and traumatizing eras in human history.  On today’s somber occasion of the UN’s International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, we acknowledge the enduring and systemic challenges faced by people of African descent and reaffirm our commitment to working in partnership with the international community to promote action against anti-Black racism, discrimination, and xenophobia here at home and around the world.

Racialized inequalities, discriminatory practices, racial injustice, and many other contemporary global challenges can be traced back to historical atrocities, including the transatlantic trade of enslaved Africans, exploitative colonial rule on the African continent, and the brutal dehumanization of Africans and their descendants over centuries.  Systemic barriers to equal access to education, healthcare, employment, and political and civic participation and representation continue to undergird pervasive economic and social inequality around the world.  Yet despite these enduring hardships, people of African descent have contributed immeasurably to shaping the United States and countries in the Western hemisphere and around the world.  The United States will continue to work to ensure the human rights of all people are respected and protected.

Tags

AfricaBureau of African AffairsHuman RightsHuman TraffickingHuman TraffickingOffice of the Special Representative for Racial Equity and JusticeOffice of the SpokespersonRacial Equity and JusticeThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
41121.

#### SMITH v. BANK OF ACWORTH.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

James P. Smith, Jr., filed the present action to recover damages allegedly accruing as a result of a contract entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant, the Bank of Acworth. Defendant filed a plea of res adjudicata *113based upon a prior action filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of a contract arising out of the same transaction involved in the present litigation, in which prior action a general demurrer was sustained. On appeal the judgment of the trial court in the prior action was affirmed because the petition failed to allege tender. See *Smith v. Bank of Ac*worth, 218 Ga. 643 (129 SE2d 857). The plea had attached thereto as exhibits the petition in the original case, the judgment of the trial court sustaining the defendant’s general demurrer, the remittitur from the Supreme Court and the judgment of the trial court making the judgment of the Supreme Court the judgment of that court. To such plea the plaintiff demurred on the ground that a dismissal on demurrer is a dismissal on a legal technicality which does not pass upon the merits of the plaintiff’s case. Such demurrer was overruled and on the trial of the issue raised by the defendant’s plea, before the trial court without the intervention of a jury, the original papers referred to above were introduced into evidence and a judgment rendered sustaining the defendant’s plea of res adjudicata. The plaintiff now assigns error on such judgments adverse to him. *Held:*

“If in rendering its judgment upon a demurrer to a petition the court does not decide upon the merits of the case, a judgment sustaining a demurrer and dismissing the petition is not a bar to another proceeding for the same cause. *Code*§ 110-503; *National Bank of Augusta v. Southern Porcelain Mfg. Co.,*59 Ga. 157, 164; *Papworth v. Fitzgerald,*111 Ga. 54 (36 SE 311); *Dolvin v. American Harrow Co.,*125 Ga. 699 (54 SE 706, 28 LRA (NS) 785); *Story v. Pope,*205 Ga. 523 (54 SE2d 394). However, if in rendering the judgment on the demurrer to the previous petition the court decides upon the merits of the case, the judgment operates as res judicata to a second petition based on the same cause of action. *Code*§ 110-504; *Kimbro v. Virginia &c. R. Co.,*56 Ga. 185; *Revels v. Kilgo,*157 Ga. 39 (b) (121 SE 209); *Smith v. Bird,*189 Ga. 105 (5 SE2d 336); *Darling Stores Corp. v. Beatus,*199 Ga. 215 (1) (33 SE2d 701).” *Dixon v. Dixon,*211 Ga. 122, 124 (84 SE2d 37).

The judgment in the prior case held that the plaintiff’s petition failed to set forth a cause of action for the relief sought, thus deciding the case on its merits. Accordingly, the judgments overruling the plaintiff’s demurrer to the defendant’s plea and *114sustaining such plea must be affirmed. See also *Wolfe v. Georgia R.*&c. *Co.,*6 Ga. App. 410 (65 SE 62); and *Hughes v. Henderson,*61 Ga. App. 743 (7 SE2d 317).

Decided February 1, 1965.

*Alton T. Milam,*for plaintiff in error.

*Edwards, Bentley, Autrey & Parker, L. M. Awtrey, A. Sidney Parker,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. §1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of SpectraScience, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James
Dorst, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§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 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
Company.





/s/
      James DorstJames
      Dorst
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
                  November
      16, 2009
§ 421.100 Intermediary functions. An agreement between CMS and an intermediary specifies the functions to be performed by the intermediary. ( a ) *Mandatory functions.* The contract must include the following functions: ( 1 ) Determining the amount of payments to be made to providers for covered services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries.
( 2 ) Making the payments.
( b ) *Additional functions.* The contract may include any or all of the following functions: ( 1 ) Any or all of the program integrity functions described in § 421.304, provided the intermediary is continuing those functions under an agreement entered into under section 1816 of the Act that was in effect on August 21, 1996, and they do not duplicate work being performed under a Medicare integrity program contract.
( 2 ) Undertaking to adjust incorrect payments and recover overpayments when it is determined that an overpayment was made.
( 3 ) Furnishing to CMS timely information and reports that CMS requests in order to carry out its responsibilities in the administration of the Medicare program.
( 4 ) Establishing and maintaining procedures as approved by CMS for the redetermination of payment determinations.
( 5 ) Maintaining records and making available to CMS the records necessary for verification of payments and for other related purposes.
( 6 ) Upon inquiry, assisting individuals for matters pertaining to an intermediary agreement.
( 7 ) Serving as a channel of communication to and from CMS of information, instructions, and other material as necessary for the effective and efficient performance of an intermediary agreement.
( 8 ) Undertaking other functions as mutually agreed to by CMS and the intermediary.
( c ) *Dual intermediary responsibilities.* Regarding the responsibility for service to provider-based HHAs and provider-based hospices, where the HHA or the hospice and its parent provider will be served by different intermediaries, the designated regional intermediary will process bills, make coverage determinations, and make payments to the HHAs and the hospices. The intermediary or Medicare integrity program contractor serving the parent provider will perform all fiscal functions, including audits and settlement of the Medicare cost reports and the HHA and hospice supplement worksheets.
[72 FR 48886, Aug. 24, 2007]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AS
INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10K FOR THE YEAR ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,290
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,969
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     63,121
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               168,073
<PP&E>                                          40,188
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 428,859
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,697
<BONDS>                                        106,715
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     31,600
<COMMON>                                           783
<OTHER-SE>                                     187,484
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   428,859
<SALES>                                        378,840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               380,866
<CGS>                                          265,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  265,360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               135,439
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,652
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (32,585)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,407
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,992)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,992)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.61)


</TABLE>
exhibit10_12.htm


     

    
      

      

    

     

    
      EXHIBIT
10.12

       

      AMENDMENT
OF PLATINUM UNDERWRITERS REINSURANCE, INC.

      EXECUTIVE
RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN (EXCESS PLAN)

       

      On
October 22, 2008, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Platinum Underwriters
Holdings, Ltd. (the “Company”) approved the amendment of the Platinum
Underwriters Reinsurance, Inc. Executive Retirement Savings Plan (the “Excess
Plan”) as a result of the adoption of Section 457A of the U.S. Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).  In accordance with Section
457A of the Code, these amendments are intended to eliminate the deferral of
income tax on compensation for services performed after December 31, 2008 by any
employee of the Company or Platinum Underwriters Bermuda, Ltd. (“Platinum
Bermuda”) who is a taxpayer in the United States of America (a “U.S.
Taxpayer”).

      


      The
Excess Plan was amended to provide that any participant in the Excess Plan who
is employed by the Company or Platinum Bermuda and is a U.S. Taxpayer shall not
be eligible to participate, and shall not be a participant, in the Excess Plan
for any periods after December 31, 2008, with the result being that such U.S.
Taxpayer shall not be entitled to any matching offset contributions or any
discretionary employer contributions made by such U.S. Taxpayer’s Employer (as
defined in the Excess Plan) under the Excess Plan in respect of any periods
after December 31, 2008.  For the avoidance of doubt, the matching
offset contribution in respect of the fourth calendar quarter of 2008 shall, and
any discretionary employer contribution in respect of the 2008 Plan Year (as
defined in the Excess Plan) may, be credited to such U.S. Taxpayer’s account in
2009.

      


      The Board
also authorized the officers of the Company to take all necessary action so
that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 457A of the Code, all amounts
under the Excess Plan payable to a U.S. Taxpayer are includible in gross income
by such U.S. Taxpayer no later than the last taxable year beginning before
2018.
#### THE UNITED STATES v. STANLEY FIELD, EXECUTOR.

[55 C. Cls., 480 ; 255 U. S., 257.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:

The provisions of laws imposing taxes are not to be extended by implication.

The revenue act of 1916, section 202, c. 463, 39 Stat. 777, did not impose an estate tax upon property passing under a testamentary execution of a general power of appointment.

To be taxable under clause (a) of section 202 of the act, the estate must be (1) an interest of the decedent at the time of his death, (2) which, after his death, is subject to the payment of the charges against his estate and the expenses of administration, and (3) is subject to. distribuí ion as part of his estate; and these conditions are expressed conjunctively and can not be construed as disjunctive.

A general power of appointment by will does not of itself vest any estate in the donee of the power.

*471iii equity, property passing under such a power may be treated as assets of the donee of the power, distributable to his creditors, but only when the power has been executed and executed In favor of a volunteer, and then only to the extent to which the donee’s own estate is insufficient to pay his debts; and his executor, if he take the appointed property at all, takes not as executor but as representative of the creditors.

In any event, the property subject to such a power is not subject to distribution as part of the estate of the donee.

Glause (b)' of section 202 of the act, describing a transfer .n interest in the decedent’s own property in his lifetime, intended to take effect at or after Ms death, does not cow a transfer by testamentary execution of a power of appointment over property not his own.

The fact that in the later act of February 24, 1919, property passing under a general power of appointment executed by the deceased was expressly included in the valuation of his estate for taxation, shows at least a legislative doubt whether the act of 1916 included such property.

Mr. Justice Pitney

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court February 28, 1921.