alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MATTHEW ADAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1811

[November 21, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Dan L. Vaughn, 

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 312014CF001053A and 312014CF001131A.

Matthew Adams, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
110P16

#### North Carolina State Board of Education v. The State of North Carolina and The North Carolina Rules Review Commission

1. Def’s (N.C. Rules Review Comm.) Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA15-1229)

1. Special Order

2. Def’s (N.C. Rules Review Comm.) PDR under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Special Order

3. Def’s (N.C. Rules Review Comm.) Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA

3. Special Order

4. Def’s (State of N.C.) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. Special Order

5. Def’s (State of N.C.) Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA

5. Special Order
79–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–600

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO

SUSPEND THE RULES

MAY 2, 2000.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 482]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 482, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides that suspensions will be in order at any

time on the legislative day of Wednesday, May 3, 2000. The object

of any motion to suspend the rules shall be announced from the

Floor at least one hour prior to its consideration. The rule further

provides that the Speaker or his designee will consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on any suspension considered under

this resolution. Finally, the rule provides that H. Res. 469 is laid

on the table.

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

§ 1.373 The responsive case. ( a ) Any other party may file a responsive case submission in the manner prescribed under this section within 30 calendar days of the filing of the affirmative case submission, unless otherwise directed by the presiding officer. The responsive case submission shall include: ( 1 ) A statement of relevant material facts, supported by sworn statements based on personal knowledge, documentation, or by other materials subject to consideration by the presiding officer, and a full legal analysis of any issues designated for hearing.
( 2 ) Citation to relevant sections of the Communications Act or Commission regulations or orders; and
( 3 ) Any relief sought.
( b ) The responsive case submission shall respond specifically to all material allegations made in the affirmative case submission. Every effort shall be made to narrow the issues for resolution by the presiding officer.
( c ) Statements of fact or law in an affirmative case filed pursuant to § 1.372 are deemed admitted when not rebutted in a responsive case submission.
No. 11-9500.

#### Pfender *v.*Wetzel, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
{"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":"23-135: In Re APPLE INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3bFlJe38BZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-16-2023-23-135-in-re-apple-inc-order-23-135-order-8-16-2023_2175085\/\">23-135: In Re APPLE INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-16-2023-23-135-in-re-apple-inc-order-23-135-order-8-16-2023_2175085\/embed\/#?secret=3bFlJe38BZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“23-135: In Re APPLE INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"3bFlJe38BZ\" 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":"ORDER Posted: In Re APPLE INC. [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 23-135 Origin: RIT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          16,387
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  174,775
<ALLOWANCES>                                    53,926
<INVENTORY>                                     37,086
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               179,644
<PP&E>                                          92,428
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,264
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 546,663
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          273,509
<BONDS>                                        310,072
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           230
<OTHER-SE>                                     169,475
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   546,475
<SALES>                                        694,530
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               694,530
<CGS>                                          556,757
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  556,757
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                53,825
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,808
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (111,198)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,326
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (114,524)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (114,524)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (5.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.31)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**In the Matter of**

**PETER FRANCIS BLUST**

**PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT FROM ADMINISTRATIVE**  **SUSPENSION :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: No. 183 DB 2015 (No. 9 RST 2016)** 

**Attorney Registration No. 47072** 

**(Out of State)**

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 27 th**  **day of January, 2016, the Report and Recommendation of**  **Disciplinary Board Member dated January 19, 2016, is ap proved and it is ORDERED**  **that Peter Francis Blust, who has been on Administrative Suspension, has never been**  **suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he ha s the moral qualifications,**  **competency and learning in law required for admission t o practice in the**  **Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to act ive status as a member of the**  **Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation**  **and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petit ioner.**
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         I, Jayme Dorrough, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Techlabs, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Techlabs, Inc.

May 24, 2004                         By: /s/ Jayme Dorrough
                                     Jayme Dorrough,
                                     President, Principal Executive Officer, and
                                     Principal Accounting and Financial Officer
404 A.2d 1355

#### Commonwealth v. Frederick, Appellant.

Submitted December 6, 1977.

John A. Goldstein, for appellant; John B. Stevens, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Order affirmed.

JACOBS, former P. J., WATKINS, former P. J., and HOFFMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10575

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAIME ALVAR CARVAJAL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CR-165-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Jaime Alvar Carvajal appeals the district court’s 

revocation of a previously imposed term of supervised release and imposition

of a sentence of 12 months and one day of imprisonment. He asserts that his 

supervised release was revoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which 

requires revocation and imposition of a term of imprisonment when the 

defendant is found to have committed specified types of violations of the terms 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10575 Document: 00515299404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2020
No. 19-10575

2

of supervised release, including the refusal to comply with drug testing. He 

contends that, because § 3583(g) does not require a jury determination beyond

a reasonable doubt, it is unconstitutional in view of the Supreme Court’s 

decision in United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019).

Carvajal concedes that review is limited to plain error because he did not 

raise this issue in the district court. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 

256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). To prevail on plain error review, he must show a 

forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. 

See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If Carvajal makes such 

a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error, but we should do so only 

if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The opinion in Haymond addresses the constitutionality of § 3583(k), 

and the plurality opinion specifically states that it does not express any view 

on the constitutionality of other subsections of the statute, including § 3583(g). 

See Haymond, 139 S. Ct. at 2382 n.7. There currently is no caselaw from either 

the Supreme Court or this court extending Haymond to § 3583(g) revocations, 

so we conclude that there is no error that was plain. See United States v. 

Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 

689 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

As Carvajal has not demonstrated that the district court committed plain 

error, so that court’s revocation of his supervised release and the term of 

imprisonment are AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-10575 Document: 00515299404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2020
§ 50-203.11 Review. ( a ) Within twenty (20) days after service of the decision of the administrative law judge any interested party to the proceeding may file with the Chief administrative law judge an original and four copies of a petition for review of the decision. The petition shall set out separately and particularly each error assigned. The request for review and the record will then be certified to the Administrative Review Board.
( b ) The petitioner may file a brief (original and four copies) in support of his petition within the period allowed for the filing of the petition. Any interested person upon whom the decision has been served may file within ten (10) days after the expiration of the period within which the petition is required to be filed a brief in support of or in opposition to the administrative law judge's decision.
( c ) The petition and the briefs filed under this section shall make specific reference to the pages of the transcript or of the exhibits which are relevant to the errors asserted with respect to findings of fact, and objections to such findings which are not so supported will not be considered.
( d ) No matter properly subject to objection before the administrative law judge will be considered by the Administrative Review Board unless it shall have been raised before the administrative law judge or unless there were reasonable grounds for failure so to do; nor will any matter be considered by the Administrative Review Board unless included in the assignment or errors. In the discretion of the Administrative Review Board, review may be denied if the petition and brief in support thereof fail to show adequate cause for such review.
( e ) The order denying review, or the decision of the Administrative Review Board, whichever is entered, will be made a part of the record, and a copy of such order or decision will be served upon the parties who were served with a copy of the administrative law judge's decision.
( f ) If the respondent is found to have violated the Act, the Administrative Review Board shall determine whether respondent shall be relieved from the application of the ineligible list provisions of section 3 of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act (sec. 4, 49 Stat. 2039; 41 U.S.C. 37).
[11 FR 14493, Dec. 18, 1946. Redesignated at 24 FR 10952, Dec. 30, 1959, and amended at 36 FR 289, Jan. 8, 1971; 61 FR 19987, May 3, 1996]
No. 11-9713.

#### Morgan *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Exhibit 99.2      Press Release

PRESS RELEASE

November 29, 2000        For further information contact:
                                  David M. Bradley
                                  Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
                                  North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                                  825 Central Avenue
                                  Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                                  515-576-7531


                         NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC.
                               ANNOUNCES DIVIDEND

David M.  Bradley,  Chairman,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of North
Central  Bancshares,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  announced  today that the  Company
declared a regular  quarterly cash dividend of $0.125 per share on the Company's
common stock for the fiscal  quarter ended  December 31, 2000. The dividend will
be payable to all  stockholders  of record as of  December  15, 2000 and will be
paid on January 5, 2001.

On November 20, 2000,  the Company  completed a 5.0% stock  repurchase  program.
During that program the Company  repurchased  102,862 shares of its  outstanding
common stock at the aggregate cost of $1,618,705 in open market transactions.

Recently,  the  Company  commenced  a new stock  repurchase  program for 100,000
shares,  of which  67,500  shares  remain to be  repurchased.  The  Company  has
1,921,880 shares of common stock currently outstanding.

North Central  Bancshares,  Inc. serves north central and southeastern Iowa at 8
full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada, Ames,  Burlington,  Mount Pleasant
and Perry, Iowa through its wholly- owned subsidiary, First Federal Savings Bank
of Iowa,  headquartered in Fort Dodge,  Iowa. The Bank's deposits are insured by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.  The Company's stock is traded on The
Nasdaq National Market under the symbol "FFFD".
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David C. Peterschmidt, as Chief
Executive Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of his knowledge, the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Openwave Systems Inc.





|                 |  |     |  |                                                            
|---------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                 |  | By: |  | /s/ David C. Peterschmidt                                  
|February 8, 2006 |  |     |  | David C. Peterschmidt President and Chief Executive Officer



In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Harold L. Covert, as Chief Financial Officer of
Openwave Systems Inc., certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of his knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Openwave Systems Inc.





|                 |  |     |  |                                                                      
|---------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                 |  | By: |  | /s/ Harold L. Covert                                                 
|                 |  |     |  | Harold L. Covert Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                 |  |    
|February 8, 2006 |  |     |  |                                                                      





45
No. 11-8055.

#### Berry *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Pablo BUCIO-RIVERA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-71181.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 2004.*

Decided March 24, 2004.

Pablo Bucio-Rivera, Montebello, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Executive Office of Immigration Review, Office of Immigration Judge, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Pablo Bucio-Rivera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings de novo, *Lopez-Urenda v. Ashcroft,*345 F.3d 788, 791 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

We review the IJ’s opinion as the “final agency determination” for purposes of this appeal. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7)(iii); *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). Because the IJ’s interpretation and application of the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard found in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) was well within the broad bounds of the statutory language, there was no violation of petitioner’s due process rights. *See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir.2003). “Once we determine that the [IJ’s] interpretation falls within this broad range authorized by the statutory language, our inquiry ends.” *Id.*at 1005.

The Clerk is directed to stay the mandate pending the resolution of *Desta v. Ashcroft,*No. 03-70477 and further order of this Court.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and. may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.