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

FOURTH DISTRICT

SHANE MCKENNEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2883

[June 9, 2022]

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

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Richard Oftedal, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 502008CF010497AXXXMB.

Shane McKenney, Blountstown, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., MAY and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 22, 2021

No. 04-21-00276-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.C.L., A CHILD

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-PA-00477

The Honorable Kimberly Burley, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellants’ parental rights, 

which must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the first notice of appeal is 

filed. Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2. Appellant R.E. filed a notice of appeal on July 7, 2021 and 

appellant M.L. filed a notice of appeal on July 9, 2021. Thus, the 180-day deadline in which this 

court must dispose of this appeal is January 3, 2022, and briefs from both appellants are due 

September 22, 2021.

On September 20, 2021, M.L. filed a motion requesting a twenty-one day 

extension until October 13, 2021 to file his appellant’s brief.

M.L.’s motion is GRANTED, and his appellant’s brief is due no later than October 13, 

2021. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for 

extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of September, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Case 16-27231 Doc 5 Filed 08/24/16 Entered 08/24/16 16:46:45 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-27231 Doc 5 Filed 08/24/16 Entered 08/24/16 16:46:45 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KAREEM B ROWN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Mark S. Davis , Chief District Judge. ( 4:17

- cr - 00113

- MSD

- RJK

- 1 )

Submitted : December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kareem Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Kareem Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for an extension of time to appeal his criminal judgment . Upon review, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that it was unable to extend the time for filing a timely notice of appeal of the criminal judgment because Brown filed his motion after the expiration of the excusable neglect period. S ee Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4) . Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Brown , No. 4:17

- cr - 00113

- MSD

- RJK

1 (E.D. Va. July 18, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
[Crim. No. 531.

First Appellate District.

November 10, 1914.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HAZEL LUX, Appellant.

Criminal Law—Murder—Evidence—Possession of Pistol—Cross-examination of Defendant—When Proper.—In this prosecution for murder where the direct examination of the defendant unequivocally referred to the pistol with which it is alleged she committed the crime charged against her, and to her possession of it, prior to' her going to a moving picture show, there was no error in allowing the people to cross-examine her as to what she did with the pistol prior to the shooting and where she carried it on her person, it appearing that the whole cross-examination on this point was germane to the direct examination.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County and from an order refusing a new trial. P. B. Ogden, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Gehring & Wyman, and A. L. Frick, for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and John H. Riordan, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

It is conceded that the evidence upon the whole case is sufficient to support the verdict; and the only point made is the alleged error in the cross-examination of the defendant. The direct examination of the defendant upon one particular point related to her possession, prior to her going to a moving picture show, of a pistol—the pistol with which it was alleged she committed the crime of murder charged against her. The direct examination unequivocally referred to this pistol and the defendant’s possession of it. The court is satisfied that the cross-examination on that point was germane to the direct examination. The people were entitled to know what she did with the pistol prior to the shooting, and where she carried it on her person. There is no doubt at all in our minds but that the cross-examination on that subject was legitimate and proper and without any prejudice to the defendant; and that being the only point in the case, the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.
Exhibit 10.24


SECOND
AMENDMENT TO

ETHANOL MARKETING AND  SERVICES
AGREEMENT


This Second Amendment to
Ethanol Marketing and Services Agreement (the “Amendment”)  is made on this 30th day of November,
2006, by and between Great Plains Ethanol,
LLC located in Turner  County,
South Dakota, (“Owner”), and Ethanol
Products, LLC, having an address of 9530 E. 37th  N., Wichita, Kansas 67226 (“Marketer”).


RECITALS:


A.                                   In
accordance with the terms and conditions of an Ethanol Marketing and Services
Agreement dated the 18th day of December, 2000 (the “Original Agreement”),
Owner granted to Marketer the exclusive right to market all ethanol produced
from Owner’s ethanol production facility.


B.                                     Owner
and Marketer made and entered into a First Amendment to Ethanol and Marketing
Services Agreement on November 27, 2002.


C.                                     Marketer
and Owner now desire to modify an additional provision of the Original
Agreement, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Amendment.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and
the mutual covenants and agreement set forth herein, the parties agree as
follow:


1.                                       The
Original Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Section 5 and replacing it
with the following provision:


5.                                       Marketing
Fee. The Marketing Fee will be $.0060/gallon o Ethanol as produced by the
Ethanol Plant to be sited in Turner County, South Dakota.


2.                                       All
other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement, as amended, shall remain
in full force and effect except as modified in this Amendment.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this Amendment on the date and year first above written.


	
   

  	
  GREAT PLAINS ETHANOL, LLC (Owner)

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ Darin Ihnen

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its

  	
  President

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  ETHANOL PRODUCTS, LLC (Marketer)

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ Robert
  Casper

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its

  	
  President
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1813

MUSTAFA H. SA’ID, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF ALEXANDRIA; KERRY J. DONLEY; ROSE WILLIAMS BOYDE; REDELLA S. PERPER; WILLIAM C. CLEVELAND; WILLIAM D. EUILLE; LONNIE C. RICH;DAVID SPEEK; LOIS LAWSON; THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHARLES E. SAMARA, Police Chief, individually; POLICE OFFICER PORTEL; POLICE OFFICER CONNIFF; JOHN DOE, #1, Police Officer; MARY DOE, Police Officer; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-563-A) Submitted: August 31, 1999 Decided: September 21, 1999 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mustafa H. Sa’id, Appellant Pro Se. George Arthur McAndrews, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Mustafa H. Sa’id appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Sa’id v. City of Alexandria , No. CA-99-563-A (E.D. Va. June 11, 1999). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1602/2005

of 30 September 2005         

fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 15(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The corrective amount referred to in Article 1(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 which is applicable to export refunds fixed in advance except for malt shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 September 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

(2)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

(3)OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1104/2003 (OJ L 158, 27.6.2003, p. 1).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 30 September 2005 fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals

----
#### Leon RADER, dba Art in Stone, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Henry J. SUTTER; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 03-16873.

D.C. No. CV-03-01824-SI.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 2004.*

Decided March 18, 2004.

John N. Dahlberg, Dillingham & Murphy, James M. Wagstaffe, Alex K. Grab, Kerr & Wagstaffe, Gregory A. Rutchik, The Arts and Technology Group, Richard J. Idell, Idell, Berman & Seitel, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Paul J. Smoot, San Mateo, CA, Gregory C. Simonian, Clapp, Moroney, Bellagamba and Vucinich, Daly City, CA, George R. Corey, Corey, Luzaich, Gemello, Manos & Pliska, Millbrae, CA, Yakov Lemberg, San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

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

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Rader's request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We subject a district court’s order regarding preliminary injunctive relief only to limited review. *Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc.,*198 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir.1999). Our review of an order regarding a preliminary injunction “is much more limited than review of an order involving a permanent injunction, where all conclusions of law are freely reviewable.” *Id.*A decision regarding a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the district court based its decision on either an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings. *Id.*

We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion here. We therefore affirm the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction. Our disposition will affect the rights of the parties only until the district court renders final judgment. *Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International,*686 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir.1982).

Rader’s motion to submit physical evidence and Quilling Monument’s motion to appear as amicus curiae are granted, and Quilling’s amicus brief is ordered filed.

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
#### § 14.61 Import declaration requirements.

Except as otherwise provided by the regulations of this subpart, importers or their agents must file with the Service a completed Declaration for Importation or Exportation of Fish or Wildlife (Form 3-177), signed by the importer or the importer's agent, upon the importation of any wildlife at the place where Service clearance under § 14.52 is requested. However, wildlife may be transshipped under bond to a different port for release from custody by Customs Service officers under 19 U.S.C. 1499. For certain antique articles as specified in § 14.22, importers or their agents must file a Form 3-177 with the District Director of Customs at the port of entry prior to release from Customs custody. Importers or their agents must furnish all applicable information requested on the Form 3-177 and the importer, or the importer's agent, must certify that the information furnished is true and complete to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.

[61 FR 49980, Sept. 24, 1996]
# EUR-Lex - 11957A035 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11957A035

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ( E.A.E.C. - EURATOM ), TITLE TWO - PROVISIONS FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF PROGRESS IN THE FIELD OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, CHAPTER III: HEALTH AND SAFETY, ARTICLE 35 **

*

*

++++

ARTICLE 35

EACH MEMBER STATE SHALL ESTABLISH THE FACILITIES NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT CONTINUOUS MONITORING OF THE LEVEL OF RADIOACTIVITY IN THE AIR , WATER AND SOIL AND TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE BASIC STANDARDS .

THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO SUCH FACILITIES ; IT MAY VERIFY THEIR OPERATION AND EFFICIENCY .
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Celadon Group, Inc. (Company) on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-14641, 333-42209, 333-42207, 333-31164, 333-131227, and 333-194017) of our report dated September 15, 2014, on our audit of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of the Company as of June 30, 2014, and for the year then ended, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated September 15, 2014, on our audit of the internal control over financial reporting of Celadon Group, Inc. as of June 30, 2014, which is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.





/s/ BKD, LLP


Indianapolis, Indiana


March 30, 2015




Back to Form 10-K/A
# EUR-Lex - 11957A161 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11957A161

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ( E.A.E.C. - EURATOM ), TITLE THREE - PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INSTITUTIONS, CHAPTER II: PROVISIONS COMMON TO SEVERAL INSTITUTIONS, ARTICLE 161 **

*

*

++++

ARTICLE 161

IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THEIR TASK THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION SHALL , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TREATY , MAKE REGULATIONS , ISSUE DIRECTIVES , TAKE DECISIONS , MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS OR DELIVER OPINIONS .

A REGULATION SHALL HAVE GENERAL APPLICATION . IT SHALL BE BINDING IN ITS ENTIRETY AND DIRECTLY APPLICABLE IN ALL MEMBER STATES .

A DIRECTIVE SHALL BE BINDING , AS TO THE RESULT TO BE ACHIEVED , UPON EACH MEMBER STATE TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED , BUT SHALL LEAVE TO THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES THE CHOICE OF FORM AND METHODS .

A DECISION SHALL BE BINDING IN ITS ENTIRETY UPON THOSE TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED .

RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS SHALL HAVE NO BINDING FORCE .
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5185

To amend the National Historic Preservation Act to prohibit the inclusion

of certain sites on the National Register of Historic Places, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 5, 1994

Mr. HERGER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the National Historic Preservation Act to prohibit

the inclusion of certain sites on the National Register

of Historic Places, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR INCLUSION ON NATIONAL

4 REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.

5 Section 101(a)(6) of the National Historic Preserva6 tion Act (16 U.S.C. 470 and following) is amended by in7 serting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(6)’’ and by adding the following at

8 the end thereof:
2

•HR 5185 IH

1 ‘‘(B) After the date of the enactment of this subpara2 graph, any unimproved or unmodified natural landscape

3 feature which does not contain artifacts or other physical

4 evidence of human activity that have unique significance

5 in history or pre-history shall not be—

6 ‘‘(i) eligible for inclusion on the National Reg7 ister of Historic Places;

8 ‘‘(ii) included on the National Register of His9 toric Places; or

10 ‘‘(iii) considered to be a historic or pre-historic

11 property or historic resource for purposes of this Act

12 or any other Federal law.

13 Nothing in this subparagraph shall invalidate or otherwise

14 affect any determination made under this Act or under

15 any other Federal law prior to the enactment of this sub16 paragraph with respect to any site.’’.

17 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF DESIGNATION OF MT. SHASTA

18 The Mt. Shasta area in the State of California, as

19 generally depicted on the U.S. Forest Service map entitled

20 ‘‘Geographic Limits Multiple Property Form Mt. Shasta

21 Native American Culture and History’’, numbered 1, and

22 dated April 1993, may not be designated by any agency

23 or authority of the United States as a historic district,

24 historic site or national monument under the National

25 Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 and following)
3

•HR 5185 IH

1 or the Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431–433). Any designa2 tion made prior to the enactment of this Act which is in3 consistent with the preceding sentence shall cease to have

4 any force and effect upon the enactment of this Act. The

5 map referred to in this section shall be on file and avail6 able for public inspection in the offices of the United

7 States Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5101 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5101

  To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide that a reasonable 
  attorney's fee shall be awarded as a part of the cost to prevailing 
                  plaintiffs in Federal civil actions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 1994

Mr. Livingston introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide that a reasonable 
  attorney's fee shall be awarded as a part of the cost to prevailing 
                  plaintiffs in Federal civil actions.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Frivolous Suit Reduction Act of 
1994''.

SEC. 2. ATTORNEYS' FEES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 123 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1932. Attorneys' fees
    ``In any civil action in a court of the United States, the court 
shall award a prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney's fee as part 
of the costs.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 123 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following new item:

``1932. Attorneys' fees.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000867443
<NAME> CAPITAL GAMING INTERNATIONAL, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,923,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,056,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,396,000
<PP&E>                                         112,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  97,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,114,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,714,000
<BONDS>                                     23,100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          400,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,114,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,200,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,159,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (52,127,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,093,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (43,075,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   138,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         42,937,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            101,466,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               144,403,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### § 95.757 Duration of RCRS Communications.

Communications on RCRS channels shall be limited to the minimum practicable time that is necessary.