alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jimmy MERRITT *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 75-93

528 S.W. 2d 365

Opinion delivered September 29, 1975

*McArthur, Lofton & Wilson, P.A.,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *Gary Isbell,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Frank Holt, Justice.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of the delivery of heroin in violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-2617 (Supp. 1973) and his punishment was assessed at seven years in the State Department of Correction. Appellant first contends for reversal that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. We cannot agree.

Appellant recognizes that, in testing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we consider only that evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the appellee and if any substantial evidence *559exists, we must affirm. *Miller*v. *State,*253 Ark. 1060, 490 S.W. 2d 445 (1973). Here, it appears that the thrust of appellant’s argument is that the statute requires something of value be received by appellant for the delivery of a controlled substance and the state’s proof is deficient in that respect. Appellant asserts the sale was complete before he received anything of value. The state adduced evidence that a narcotics officer had negotiated with appellant about selling him some heroin. The appellant requested $100 for a gram. The officer refused to give it to him since he did not know him well enough. However, as requested by appellant, the officer gave the money to appellant’s female confederate when she arrived. She and the appellant then left together and returned approximately twenty minutes later. The appellant’s accomplice delivered the heroin to the officer at which time she and the appellant identified the substance to the officer as being heroin. The appellant then asked the officer to give him “a portion of the heroin for getting it for him.” The officer refused. However, he gave him $10. The evidence is amply sufficient that appellant was an active participant in the transaction. *Miller*v. *State, supra.*

Neither can we agree with appellant that the testimony of the state’s expert witness, a chemist employed by the State Health Department, should have been excluded. It appears that the objection to his testimony was based upon the asserted right of the appellant to have the substance (heroin) examined and analyzed by an independent chemist or by someone other than an employee of an agency of “the State who works hand in hand with the law enforcement agencies.” We have rejected a similar argument in the recent case of *Hale*v. *State,*246 Ark. 989, 440 S.W.2d 550 (1969). See also *Upton*v. *State,*254 Ark. 664, 497 S.W.2d 696 (1973); and *Grissom*v. *State,*254 Ark. 81, 491 S.W.2d 595 (1973). Here, suffice it to say that the record does not reflect that appellant was ever refused a request to have the substance (heroin) examined by an expert witness of his own choosing.

Affirmed.
# Official Journal C 170/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.170.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 170 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5515 June 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.170.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 170

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5515 June 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2012/C 170/01 | Report on budgetary and financial management for the financial year 2011 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2012/C 170/01

Report on budgetary and financial management for the financial year 2011

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
H. R. 2467 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 69 Montgomery Street in Jersey City, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Frank J. Guarini Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FRANK J. GUARINI POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 69 Montgomery Street in Jersey City, New Jersey, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Frank J. Guarini Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Frank J. Guarini Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Docket 20-2009 and 22-2009]

The comment period for the applications for subzone status at the Dow Corning Corporation (Dow Corning) facilities in Carrollton, Elizabethtown and Shepherdsville, Kentucky (74 FR 21621-21622, 5/8/09) and at the REC Silicon facility in Moses Lake, Washington (74 FR 25488-25489, 5/28/09) is being extended to October 21, 2009 to allow interested parties additional time in which to comment. Rebuttal comments may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period, until November 5, 2009. Submissions (original and one electronic copy) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230.

For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at Elizabeth_Whiteman@ita.doc.gov or (202) 482-0473.

Dated: September 28, 2009.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-23941 Filed 10-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D22-2600

LT Case No. 2018-CA-030382

_____________________________

SL ASSETS, LLC, A FLORIDA 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, as

TRUSTEE for TRUST #7330,

Appellant,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, as TRUSTEE for 

TBW MORTGAGE-BACKED TRUST 

SERIES 2006-2, TBW MORTGAGEBACKED PASS-THROUGH 

CERTIFIED SERIES, 2006 et.al.,

Appellee.

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County. 

Curt Jacobus, Judge. 

Blake J. Fredrickson, of Fredrickson’s Law Group, P.A., Tampa, 

for Appellant.

Kimberly George and Joseph G. Paggi, III, of Deluca Law Group, 

PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee. 

April 12, 2024

PER CURIAM.
2

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, HARRIS, and KILBANE, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30628

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DEON THOMAS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:06-CR-271-1

Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Deon Thomas has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Thomas has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 16, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
ro
~*
cr-
uj

LJJ

ru

1=1

ru

rr
§ 1235.3 Establishment and evaluation of a record retention program. ( a ) *Establishment.* Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance shall establish and maintain a written record retention program and provide a copy of such program to the Deputy Director of the Division of Enterprise Regulation, or his or her designee, or the Deputy Director for the Division of Federal Home Loan Bank Regulation, or his or her designee, as appropriate, within 180 days of the effective date of this part, and annually thereafter, and whenever a significant revision to the program has been made.
( b ) *Evaluation.* Management of each regulated entity and the Office of Finance shall evaluate in writing the adequacy and effectiveness of the record retention program at least every two years and provide a copy of the evaluation to the board of directors and the Director.
SCALE 1:24,000

GREENFIELD QUADRANGLE

1 0.5 0 1 MILE

1 0.5 0 1 KILOMETER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

OFFICE OF THE STATE GEOLOGIST

AND EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

Prepared in cooperation with the OPEN-FILE REPORT 2006-1260-G

Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map

Surficial Geologic Map of the Greenfield Quadrangle, Massachusetts

Compiled by

Janet R. Stone and Mary L. DiGiacomo-Cohen

2010

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1968.

Map was scanned, processed, georeferenced,

rectified, and cropped by the Office of the

Massachusetts State Geologist. Image available online at:

http://www.geo.umass.edu/stategeologist/frame_maps.htm

Map units were reproduced from Jahns (1966).

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

(SHEET 7 of 24)

(S

H

ELB

U

R

N

E

FALLS)

(MILLE

R

S

FALLS)

(BERNARDSTON)

(MOUNT TOBY) 72°30'0"W

72°30'0"W

72°37'30"W

72°37'30"W

42°37'30"N

42°37'30"N

42°30'0"N

42°30'0"N

Stone, J.R., and DiGiacomo-Cohen, M.L., compilers, 2010,

Surficial geologic map of the Heath-Northfield-SouthwickHampden 24-quadrangle area in the Connecticut Valley

region, west-central Massachusetts:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1260-G.

Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1260/G.
HomeInformation for Journalists...Request a Media Interview

# 									Request a Media Interview							

### Interview Requests for State Department Officials

Send an email to **MediaInterviews@state.gov** with the subject and deadline.  This email only processes interview requests for State Department Officials.  All other media inquiries will be redirected to the Media Inquiry Submission form.

### Ground Rules for Interviewing State Department Officials

Ground rules must be agreed upon at the beginning of a conversation or an interview with State Department officials. The discussion should proceed only after you and the officials are clear on exactly how the information can be used or attributed.

**On the Record**Information may be quoted directly and attributed to the official by name and title.

**On Background**The official’s remarks may be quoted directly or paraphrased and are attributed to a “State Department official” or “Administration official,” as determined by the official.

**On Deep Background**The official cannot be quoted or identified in any manner, not even as “an unnamed source.” The information is usually couched in such phrases as “it is understood that” or “it has been learned.” The information may be used in the reporting to help present or gain a better understanding of the subject, but the knowledge is that of the reporter not the source.

**Off the Record**Nothing of what the journalist is told may be used in the story. The information is meant only for the education of the reporter.

Back to Top
#### §§ 15.171-15.999 [Reserved]
§ 1225.3 Procedures. ( a ) *Information* — ( 1 ) *Information to the regulated entity or entities.* If the Director determines, based on standards enunciated in this part, that a temporary increase in the minimum capital level is necessary, the Director will provide notice to the affected regulated entity or entities 30 days in advance of the date that the temporary minimum capital requirement becomes effective, unless the Director determines that an exigency exists that does not permit such notice or the Director determines a longer time period would be appropriate.
( 2 ) *Information to the Government.* The Director shall inform the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission of a temporary increase in the minimum capital level contemporaneously with informing the affected regulated entity or entities.
( b ) *Comments.* The affected regulated entity or entities may provide comments regarding or objections to the temporary increase to FHFA within 15 days or such other period as the Director determines appropriate under the circumstances. The Director may determine to modify, delay, or rescind the announced temporary increase in response to such comments or objection, but no further notice is required for the temporary increase to become effective upon the date originally determined by the Director.
( c ) *Communication.* The Director shall transmit notice of a temporary increase or rescission of a temporary increase in the minimum capital level in writing, using electronic or such other means as appropriate. Such communication shall set forth, at a minimum, the bases for the Director's determination, the amount of increase or decrease in the minimum capital level, the anticipated duration of such increase, and a description of the procedures for requesting a rescission of the temporary increase in the minimum capital level.
( d ) *Written plan.* In making a finding under this part, the Director may require a written plan to augment capital to be submitted on a timely basis to address the methods by which such temporary increase may be attained and the time period for reaching the new temporary minimum capital level.
( e ) *Time frame for review of temporary increase for purpose of rescission.* ( 1 ) Absent an earlier determination to rescind in whole or in part a temporary increase in the minimum capital level for a regulated entity or entities, the Director shall no less than every 12 months, consider the need to maintain, modify, or rescind such increase.
( 2 ) A regulated entity or regulated entities may at any time request in writing such review by the Director.
§ 1254.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) The purpose of this part is to set forth standards and criteria for the process an Enterprise must establish to validate and approve any credit score model that produces any credit score that the Enterprise requires in its mortgage purchase procedures and systems.
( b ) The validation and approval process for a credit score model includes the following phases: Solicitation of Applications, Submission of Applications and Initial Review, Credit Score Assessment, and Enterprise Business Assessment.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4586

CIAM SINON, a/k/a Harvey Kenyatta

Simons,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.

Robert C. Chambers, District Judge.

(CR-00-00044-3)

Submitted: January 10, 2001

Decided: January 23, 2001

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

J. C. Powell, POWELL LAW OFFICES, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John C. Parr,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Harvey Kenyatta Simons appeals his 168-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. He alleges

on appeal that he should have received a reduction under the Sentencing Guidelines for acceptance of responsibility and should not have

received an enhancement for obstruction of justice. For the reasons

that follow, we affirm. 

Using a false name, Simons pled guilty, testified to the grand jury,

and lied to the probation officer regarding his background. Under

these circumstances we do not find that the district court clearly erred

in applying the appropriate Guideline provisions. First, notwithstanding his guilty plea, Simons failed to accept responsibility for his crime

by lying about his identity. United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000,

1005 (4th Cir. 1996); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG")

§ 3E1.1 comment. (n.3) (a defendant who enters a guilty plea is not

entitled to an adjustment as a matter of right). Second, Simons’

deceitful conduct may also form the basis for an obstruction of justice

enhancement. United States v. Saintil, 910 F.2d 1231, 1232 (4th Cir.

1990); USSG § 3C1.1 & comment. (n.4(f), (g)). 

Accordingly, we affirm Simons’ sentence. 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

2 UNITED STATES v. SINON
§ 45.605 Inspector General report. ( a ) The Inspector General, or other official as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, of each agency shall prepare and submit to Congress each year, commencing with submission of the President's Budget in 1991, an evaluation of the compliance of that agency with, and the effectiveness of, the requirements herein. The evaluation may include any recommended changes that may be necessary to strengthen or improve the requirements.
( b ) In the case of an agency that does not have an Inspector General, the agency official comparable to an Inspector General shall prepare and submit the annual report, or, if there is no such comparable official, the head of the agency shall prepare and submit the annual report.
( c ) The annual report shall be submitted at the same time the agency submits its annual budget justifications to Congress.
( d ) The annual report shall include the following: All alleged violations relating to the agency's covered Federal actions during the year covered by the report, the actions taken by the head of the agency in the year covered by the report with respect to those alleged violations and alleged violations in previous years, and the amounts of civil penalties imposed by the agency in the year covered by the report.
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.712 Improved pension elections; surviving spouses of Spanish-American War veterans. ( a ) *General.* A surviving spouse of a Spanish-American War veteran eligible for pension under 38 U.S.C. 1536 may elect to receive improved pension under 38 U.S.C. 1541. Except as provided by § 3.714, an election of improved pension is final when the payee (or the payee's fiduciary) negotiates one check for this benefit and there is no right of reelection.
( b ) *Aid and attendance.* A surviving spouse of a Spanish-American War veteran who is receiving or entitled to receive pension based on need for regular aid and attendance shall be paid whichever is the greater: The monthly rate authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1536 (a) and (b) and 1544 or the monthly rate authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1541 and 544, as 38 U.S.C. 1541 and 1544 were in effect on December 31, 1978, based on the surviving spouse's current income and net worth. Pension under 38 U.S.C. 1541 and 1544, as in effect on December 31, 1978, is not payable if the current size of the surviving spouse's net worth is a bar to payment under § 3.252(b) or if the surviving spouse's income exceeds the applicable limitation as in effect on December 31, 1978. Elections are not required for this purpose. The change in rate shall be effective the first day of the month in which the facts warrant such change.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1536)
[44 FR 45943, Aug. 6, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 11661, Feb. 10, 1981; 61 FR 67950, Dec. 26, 1996]
49826 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 11.31 EAS protocol. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * Unused characters must be 

ASCII space characters. * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–23478 Filed 9–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Part 52 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Conforming Late Offer Treatment 

CFR Correction 

In Title 48 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Chapter 1 (Parts 52 to 99), 

revised as of October 1, 2008, on pages 

79 and 80, remove and reserve sections 

52.214–32 and 52.214–33. 

[FR Doc. E9–23475 Filed 9–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

48 CFR Part 201 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Electronic 

Publication of DFARS 

CFR Correction 

In Title 48 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Chapter 2 (Parts 201 to 

299), revised as of October 1, 2008, on 

page 10, in section 201.304, reinstate 

paragraph (6) to read as follows: 

201.304 Agency control and compliance 

procedures. 

* * * * * 

(6) The Director of Defense 

Procurement publishes changes to the 

DFARS in the Federal Register and 

electronically via the World Wide Web. 

Each change includes an effective date. 

Unless guidance accompanying a 

change states otherwise, contracting 

officers must include any new or 

revised clauses, provisions, or forms in 

solicitations issued on or after the 

effective date of the change. 

[FR Doc. E9–23476 Filed 9–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES