alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC17

- 1765

____________ MARK ALLEN GERALDS, Appellant,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [February 28, 2018]
PER CURIAM. We have for review Mark Allen Geralds’ appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Geralds’ motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Geralds’ motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s
decision in Hurst v. Florida , 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in
Hurst v. State ( Hurst ), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock v . State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert.
denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017) , Geralds responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.- 2

-

After reviewing Geralds’ response to the order to show cause, as well a s the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Geralds is not entitled to relief.
Geralds was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for
death. Geralds v. State , 674 So. 2d 96, 98 (Fla. 1996 ). Geralds’ sentence of death
becam e final in 1996. Geralds v. Florida , 519 U.S. 891 (1996). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Geralds’ sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Geralds’ motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Geralds , we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so
ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in res ult with an opinion. LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock
v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is no w final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock

. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Bay County, Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge

- Case No. 031989CF000495XXAXMX
Linda McDermott of McClain & McDer mott, P.A., Estero, Florida, for Appellant- 3

-

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lisa A. Hopkins , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee
Wdesk | Exhibit







Exhibit 10.2







MDU Resources Group, Inc.
2017 Performance Share Award Opportunity Chart


	
					
	Name
	Title
	Threshold
	Target
	Maximum

	Shares
 (#)
	Shares
(#)
	Shares
 (#)

	David L. Goodin
	President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company
	12,378
	61,890
	123,780

	Doran N. Schwartz
	Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
	2,445
	12,225
	24,450

	David C. Barney
	President and Chief Executive Officer of construction materials and contracting segment
	2,668
	13,338
	26,676

	Jeffrey S. Thiede
	President and Chief Executive Officer of construction services segment
	2,734
	13,670
	27,340

	Martin A. Fritz
	President and Chief Executive Officer of pipeline and midstream segment
	2,573
	12,866
	25,732
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1507: LOPEZ v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"yaYL4ZkXw5\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-13-2022-22-1507-lopez-v-mcdonough-opinion-22-1507-opinion-6-13-2022_1964225\/\">22-1507: LOPEZ v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-13-2022-22-1507-lopez-v-mcdonough-opinion-22-1507-opinion-6-13-2022_1964225\/embed\/#?secret=yaYL4ZkXw5\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1507: LOPEZ v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"yaYL4ZkXw5\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: LOPEZ v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1507 Origin: CAVC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.744 Amendments. ( a ) Any application not designated for hearing may be amended at any time by the filing of signed amendments in the same manner, and with the same number of copies, as was the initial application. If a petition to deny (or to designate for hearing) has been filed, the amendment shall be served on the petitioner.
( b ) After any application is designated for hearing, requests to amend such application may be granted by the presiding officer upon good cause shown by petition, which petition shall be properly served upon all other parties to the proceeding.
( c ) The applicant may at any time be ordered to amend his application so as to make it more definite and certain. Such order may be issued upon motion of the Commission (or the presiding officer, if the application has been designated for hearing) or upon petition of any interested person, which petition shall be properly served upon the applicant and, if the application has been designated for hearing, upon all parties to the hearing.
[29 FR 6444, May 16, 1964, and 31 FR 14394, Nov. 9, 1966]
May 19, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11270 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform 

Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket FAA-2014-0930

Dear Sir or Madam;

Elevated Perspective Media was issued an Exemption numbered 11270 (hereinafter 

the Exemption) for the purpose of conducting scripted, closed-set filming for the motion 

picture and television industry. Elevated Perspective media herby requests an amendment 

to the Exemption to allow an additional type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully 

complies with the conditions of the Exemption. 

Elevated Perspective Media wishes to operate a DJI S1000 and a Xfoldrig using a DJI 

A2 controller (both additional UAS’s are the same size and power as the already exempted 

aervonics skyjib) under the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption. All 

operations of the additional UAS’s will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption.

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of 

another type of unmanned aerial vehicle, Elevated Perspective Media respectfully submits 

that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register 

for the requested amendment.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this 

request for an amendment to the Exemption.

Sincerely yours, 

Thomas Webb

Vice President 

Elevated Perspective Media

36 post road

Warwick Rhode Island
No. 11-9301.

#### In re Richards.

See this Court’s Rule 39.8.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S JUNE 30, 1997 UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT AND CASH
FLOW STATEMENT, AND NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                  $12,612,362
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,539,811
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       922,114
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               1,086,873
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,161,160
<COMMON>                                     2,244,326
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,560,221
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               3,804,547
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         6,493,500<F1>
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             310,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  169,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               5,384,113
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               16,161,160
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    2,135,811
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            26,636
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,826,226
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,852,862
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        282,949
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             193,064
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 476,013
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       307,436
<NET-INCOME>                                   168,577
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  168,577
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       227,544
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      453,080
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                        (86,253)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.22
<FN>
<F1>See Note F to financial statements; includes long term note payable.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### EX PARTE Nicholas McCARY

CR-14-0161

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

02/04/2015

Mand. pet. denied
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.225 Participation by non-parties; consideration of communications. ( a ) Any person who wishes to appear and give evidence on any matter and who so advises the Secretary, will be notified by the Secretary if that matter is designated for hearing. In the case of requests bearing more than one signature, notice of hearing will be given to the person first signing unless the request indicates that such notice should be sent to someone other than such person.
( b ) No persons shall be precluded from giving any relevant, material, and competent testimony because they lack a sufficient interest to justify their intervention as parties in the matter.
( c ) No communication will be considered in determining the merits of any matter unless it has been received into evidence. The admissibility of any communication shall be governed by the applicable rules of evidence in § 1.351, and no communication shall be admissible on the basis of a stipulation unless Commission counsel as well as counsel for all of the parties shall join in such stipulation.
[28 FR 12425, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 85 FR 63175, Oct. 6, 2020]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.104 Preserving the right of review; deferred consideration of application for review. ( a ) The provisions of this section apply to all final actions taken pursuant to delegated authority, including final actions taken by members of the Commission's staff on nonhearing matters. They do not apply to interlocutory actions of a presiding officer in hearing proceedings, or to orders designating a matter for hearing issued under delegated authority. *See* §§ 1.106(a) and 1.115(e).
( b ) Any person desiring Commission consideration of a final action taken pursuant to delegated authority shall file either a petition for reconsideration or an application for review (but not both) within 30 days from the date of public notice of such action, as that date is defined in § 1.4(b). The petition for reconsideration will be acted on by the designated authority or referred by such authority to the Commission: Provided that a petition for reconsideration of an order designating a matter for hearing will in all cases be referred to the Commission. The application for review will be acted upon by the Commission, except in those cases where a Bureau or Office has been delegated authority to dismiss an application for review. Note:
In those cases where the Commission does not intend to release a document containing the full text of its action, it will state that fact in the public notice announcing its action.
( c ) If in any matter one party files a petition for reconsideration and a second party files an application for review, the Commission will withhold action on the application for review until final action has been taken on the petition for reconsideration.
( d ) Any person who has filed a petition for reconsideration may file an application for review within 30 days from the date of public notice of such action, as that date is defined in § 1.4(b) of these rules. If a petition for reconsideration has been filed, any person who has filed an application for review may: ( 1 ) Withdraw his application for review, or
( 2 ) substitute an amended application therefor.
[28 FR 12415, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 41 FR 14871, Apr. 8, 1976; 44 FR 60294, Oct. 19, 1979; 46 FR 18556, Mar. 25, 1981; 62 FR 4170, Jan. 29, 1997; 85 FR 63173, Oct. 6, 2020; 86 FR 12547, Mar. 4, 2021]
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 30447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12892]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting: correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On May 15, 2015, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a 
notice of open meeting announcing a meeting on June 18, 2015 of the 
Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah (80 FR 
27941). This document makes a correction to that notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Woodard, Deputy Designated 
Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, 1017 
Majestic Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, Kentucky 40513, (270) 441-6820.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of May 15, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-11788, on 
page 27942, please make the following correction:
    In that notice under DATES, first column, second paragraph, the 
meeting date has been changed. The new date is June 25, 2015 instead of 
June 18, 2015.

    Issued at Washington, DC on May 20, 2015.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-12892 Filed 5-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
§ 22.575 Use of mobile channel for remote control of station functions. Carriers may remotely control station functions (e.g. shut down or reactivate base transmitters, turn aviation obstruction warning lights on or off, etc.) using a control transmitter operating on a mobile channel, subject to the conditions in this section and in § 22.567(h). ( a ) The control transmitter must be capable of overriding transmissions from subscriber-operated transmitters if necessary. Subscriber-operated transmitters must not be capable of being used to deliberately or accidentally prevent the licensee from controlling the station.
( b ) The licensee must implement measures designed to prevent station functions from being controlled by persons not authorized by the licensee to control the station.
( c ) The control transmitter location must be within the composite service contour of the licensee's authorized station on the paired base channel.
No. D-1274.

#### In re Disbarment of Kraemer.

It is ordered that Joel R Kraemer, of Madison, N. J., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Exhibit 32 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 LipidViro Tech, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), we, Thomas J. Howells, President and Chief Executive Officer and Shelley Goff, Treasurer of the Company, certify, 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 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.  Date:May 6, 2010By:/s/Thomas J. HowellsThomas J. Howells, President and Chief Executive Officer  Date:May 6, 2010By:/s/Shelley GoffShelley Goff, Treasurer
§ 102-83.65 What is a principal city? ( a ) A principal city is an incorporated place or census designated place within a CBSA that meets certain employment and population-based criteria. Major metropolitan areas typically have several principal cities.
( b ) The principal city designation is established by OMB pursuant to the *Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas,* as updated periodically and published in the Federal Register, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1104(d) and 44 U.S.C. 3504(e). OMB regularly publishes an updated list of Principal Cities (OMB Bulletin No. 20-01, and succeeding). In this part, the principal city designation is used to help the Federal agency focus local consultation and engagement.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2018-1597: InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"A1NaR7i1dJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-2018-1597-invue-security-products-inc-v-mobile-tech-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-1597: InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-2018-1597-invue-security-products-inc-v-mobile-tech-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=A1NaR7i1dJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-1597: InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"A1NaR7i1dJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-1597 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
#### § 24.9 Operation of certificated signal boosters.

Individuals and non-individuals may operate certificated Consumer Signal Boosters on frequencies regulated under this part provided that such operation complies with all applicable rules under this part and § 20.21 of this chapter. Failure to comply with all applicable rules voids the authority to operate a signal booster.

[78 FR 21564, Apr. 11, 2013]