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

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4815

_____________________________

ROBERT MULLALY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Bruce Anderson, Judge.

December 31, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Robert Mullaly appeals his life sentence. We reverse and 

remand for resentencing because, in sentencing Mr. Mullaly, the 

trial judge relied on a 1993 assault charge, which was dropped.

Mr. Mullaly was found guilty of rape in 1973 and was required 

to be treated with sexual psychotherapy as a prerequisite to his 

sentencing. See Slappey v. State, 584 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 

1991). See also Haager v. State, 36 So. 3d 883, 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2010) (describing the sentencing scheme applicable to sex 

offenders in the 1970s). But the court sentenced him to life in 

prison without the required treatment. In 2015, Mr. Mullaly filed 

a motion to vacate the 1973 judgment and sentence and to hold a 

new sentencing because of the error. The court granted his motion, 
2

vacated the 1973 judgment and sentence, and found that he 

completed the requisite treatment. Mr. Mullaly was then 

resentenced to life in prison.

At Mr. Mullaly’s resentencing, the trial court considered the 

mitigating factors, as well as the aggravating events that 

happened while Mr. Mullaly was on parole. One of the events was 

an alleged 1993 assault on his wife, a charge that was dropped. 

The trial court mentioned it twelve times in the course of Mr. 

Mullaly’s resentencing and appeared to consider it an aggravator.

Under these circumstances, we agree with Mr. Mullaly that 

the trial judge sentenced him improperly, by relying partly on the 

alleged 1993 assault on his wife. See Drinkard v. State, 177 So. 3d 

993, 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (remanding for resentencing, because 

“[a]t sentencing, the trial court repeatedly referred to the state’s 

evidence that appellant had been racing on a highway — conduct 

for which appellant and a co-defendant had been charged and 

acquitted”). And the State failed to show that the alleged 1993 

assault “played no part in the sentence imposed.” See Williams v. 

State, 8 So. 3d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citations omitted)

(“When portions of the record show the trial court relied upon prior 

acquittals in determining a defendant’s sentence, the State has the 

burden to demonstrate those considerations ‘played no part in the 

sentence imposed.’”).

Accordingly, we reverse Mr. Mullaly’s sentence and remand

for sentencing before a different judge.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
3

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 99.3


                Report of Independent Accountants

To the Shareholders and Trustees of NSTAR:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet of NSTAR and its subsidiaries as of March 31, 2003, and the
related condensed consolidated statements of income,
comprehensive income, and retained earnings for each of the three-
month periods ended March 31, 2003 and March 31, 2002 and the
condensed consolidated statement of cash flows for the three-
month periods ended March 31, 2003 and March 31, 2002. These
interim financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A
review of interim financial information consists principally of
applying analytical procedures and making inquiries of persons
responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is
substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of
which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such
an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material
modifications that should be made to the accompanying condensed
consolidated interim financial statements for them to be in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America.

We previously audited in accordance with auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States of America, the
consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2002, and the
related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income,
retained earnings, and of cash flows for the year then ended (not
presented herein), and in our report dated January 22, 2003 we
expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial
statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth in the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December
31, 2002 is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to
the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
May 7, 2003
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 1, 2021

NO. 03

- 19

- 00236

- CR

James Lee Jobson , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELL Y, A ND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the par ties ’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in

the judgment

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Because

appellan t is indigent and u nabl e to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Fisher Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q/A), I David D. Hillard, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | (3) |  | The Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) |  | The information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated:    September 12, 2003



By:

/s/    DAVID D.
HILLARDDavid D. Hillard Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer
From: VALERIE WEBB

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 10:09:43 AM

CMS-9992-IFC2

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 54

TD 9541

RIN 1545-BJ60

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employee Benefits Security Administration

29 CFR Part 2590

RIN 1210-AB44

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CMS-9992-IFC2

45 CFR Part 147

RIN 0938-AQ07

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive

Services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

We applaud HHS' regulations accepting the Institute of Medicine's well-grounded

recommendations for adding 8 new preventive services for women to be covered without

additional co-payments and deductibles. The scientific recognition of these important

services, including contraception and screening for domestic violence, and easing the

economic burden to access them, will enormously improve the lives of all women and

their partners and families.

We regret however the amendment offering certain religious employers the option not

to include contraception as a preventive service. The religious employers in question

are narrowly defined; in essence, church employees could be affected, but not churchaffiliated hospitals or health plans.

Nevertheless, many women who work for and attend the Catholic Church, for example,

do not necessarily agree with the Church's position banning all but one method of

contraception. Virtually all sexually active Catholic women have used a banned method

of birth control, and 63% support covering contraception through insurance. It is

unfortunate that some of these women would be asked to choose among their faith, their

families, and the opinions of their employers.

We request that HHS reconsider and reverse this amendment.

Sincerely,

Valerie Webb

414 Dunham Place Commons
St. Charles, IL 60174
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18880]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health Amended 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Council of 
Councils, September 07, 2023, Partially Closed Meeting that was 
published in the Federal Register on August 08, 2023, 88 FR 53504.
    The publication is being amended to change the open session end 
time ``3:15 p.m.'' to ``3:00 p.m.''. In the amended portion of the 
notice, the open session end time of the Council of Councils meeting 
was listed in error. The meeting is partially closed to the public.

    Dated: August 25, 2023.
David W. Freeman,
Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-18880 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18
  U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
              SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
The undersigned, Brian J. Kelley, the Chief Executive
Officer of Cognitronics Corporation (the "Company"), has
executed this certification in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2005  (the "Report").  The undersigned hereby
certifies 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.

DATED this 31st day of March, 2006


						/s/ Brian J. Kelley
						Brian J. Kelley
						Chief Executive Officer


                                           A signed original of this
                                           written statement required by
                                           Section 906 has been provided
                                           to the Company and will be
                                           retained by the Company and
                                           furnished to the Securities and
                                           Exchange Commission or its
                                           staff upon request.
---

---

Exhibit 23.9

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-8, (File No.
333-61895, File No. 333-55970) and Forms S-3, (File No. 333- 140968, File No. 333-140969
and, File No. 333-140974) of our report dated February 26, 2008, relating to the financial
statements of Hod Hasharon Sport Center (1992) Limited Partnership which appears in this
Form 10-K of Ampal  American Israel Corporation.

KPMG Somekh Chaikin
 Tel Aviv

March 13, 2008



---

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7972

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CALVIN DOUGLAS DYESS, a/k/a Carlos Rawmel,

a/k/a Calcutta,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,

Chief District Judge. (CR-99-12-2-01)

Submitted: April 19, 2002 Decided: May 9, 2002

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Douglas Dyess, Appellant Pro Se. Monica Kaminski Schwartz,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* For the purpose of this appeal we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App.

P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Douglas Dyess seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 motion for a new trial. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Dyess’ notice

of appeal was not timely filed.

Criminal defendants may file an appeal within ten days after

the entry of the district court’s final judgment, or the date of

the Government’s appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4)(i)-(ii). This

appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v.

Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting

United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order denying Dyess’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 33

motion was entered on the docket on June 5, 2001. Dyess’ notice of

appeal was filed on October 30, 2001.* Because Dyess failed to file

a timely notice of appeal, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

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.

DISMISSED
From: Theresa Mayer

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:49:28 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Theresa Mayer
Ontonagon, Michigan
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (3.07 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### Elnathan Sweet v. Dorelius Morrison.

Motion, denied. Opinion by

Dykman, J.;

Pratt, J., not sitting.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.1 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 32926 ( 321 )

- 261

- 2547 uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com November 3, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration Office of Rulemaking, Bldg. 10A 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

RE: Summary Grant for Independent Mapping Consultants E xemption Request Under Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 , 4 9 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11

Dear Sir or M adam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA)

, 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Independent Mapping Consu l tants, ( IMC ) an operator of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“sUAS”) equipped to conduct full service photography and v ideography

, seeks exemption f rom the following listed Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to allow commercial operation of the previously approved DJI Phantom, DJI S1000 plus, Pulse Vapor 35, Pulse Vapor 55 within the National Airspace System (NAS) for controlled, low

- risk, aerial video and photography, aerial mapping and survey, site specific highway Lidar mapping and ortho image mapping, as well as powerline corridor and bridge inspections over certain areas of the United States, conducted within and under the conditions outlined herein, or as may be establish ed by the FAA, as required by Section 333 requirements.

IMC i n the accompanying petition, seeks exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. §§ 45.27(a), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.105, 91.119(c), 91.121

, 91.151(b)

, 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a) (1) and ( 2 ),and 91.417(a) and (b)

.
IMC has requested that the FAA not request public comment on its petition because it

would not set a ny precedent and because the relief requested is identical to numerous exemptions granted previously by the FAA . 14 C.F.R. § 11.87.

In addition

, IMC w ill be utilizing the s ame pr oven airframes and technologies the FAA has already accepted and approved in numerous previously approved exemptions. Combined, th eir comp rehensive Section 333 Exemption and the approvals the FAA has already given to their chosen products and th e technology, should provide the supportUASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 32926 ( 321 )

- 261

- 2547 uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com necessary to the FAA for a S ummary G rant of IMC ’ s Section 333 Petition and expedite the process.

Kelly J. Neubecker CEO UASolutions Group, Inc.