alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

PEDRO RANDELL SHIRD, JR., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1784

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed July 6, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee

County; J. Frank Porter, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Judith Ellis, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy,

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa,

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SLEET, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mauro JAIMES-ESTRADA, also known as Mauro Estrada Jaimes, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50142.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Henry Joseph Bemporad, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Mauro Jaimes-Estrada raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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 of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Olegario SAAVEDRA-ROJAS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50165.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*671Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2005.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Olegario Saavedra-Rojas appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment. He contends that the district court lacked authority to impose a new term of imprisonment because the imposition of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 was unconstitutional under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (upholding § 3583).

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.
(Reap. Dec. 10822)

#### F. B. Wilcon Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5793, etc.

(Decided September 9, 1964)

*TompMns*c£- *Tomplvms*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*412Fom>, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, covering the automobiles specified on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the reappraisement appeals listed in the attached schedule “A,” have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the automobiles specified on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the reappraisement appeals listed in the attached Schedule A, which Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, that were appraised at a value of $1240.00 each, net, (Canadian dollars), consist of automobiles manufactured in England, and imported into the United States from Canada prior to February 27,1958.

> That there was no “foreign value”, or “export value”, or “United States value”, as defined in Sections 402(e), (d), and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, for the automobiles under appeal at the time of exportation thereof.

> That in determining the “cost of production” value as defined in Section 402(f) of said Act, the Appraiser included in his above value $1240 each, net, a cost of $95.00 (Canadian dollars) representing a Canadian excise tax, as well as a cost of $230.00 (Canadian dollars) representing a Canadian sales tax. That said Canadian excise tax ($95.) and sales tax ($230.) were paid to the Canadian government prior to exportation to the United States, but they were refunded after exportation, under the same circumstances and conditions involved in the case of *John V. Carr & Son, Inc.,*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 10442, and that the record in said *John V. Carr & Son, Inc.*case may be incorporated as a part of the record in this case.

> Plaintiff limits its appeals to the claim that said excise tax of $95.00, and the said sales tax of $230.00 should not be included as a part of the cost of production dutiable value.

> The appeals set forth in the attached Schedule A are submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Accepting tbis stipulation as a statement of facts, I find and hold that the involved merchandise was entered into the United States prior to February 27, 1958, and that in determining the cost of production, as defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, said excise tax of $95 and said sales tax of $230 should not be included as part of the cost of production, as these amounts were paid to the Canadian Government prior to exportation to the United States, but they were refunded after exportation.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case 2:06-cr-00168-JCC Document 36 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00168-JCC Document 36 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard Jay LEVINE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50367.

D.C. No. CR-99-02560-BTM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 7, 2001.*

Decided June 18, 2001.

Before KOZINSKI, THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and WHYTE,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, United States District Judge for Northern California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Sufficient evidence existed to allow a rational trier of fact to convict Levine of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and interstate communications with intent to extort, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(d). The trial testimony, the recorded telephone conversations and the videotaped meeting provided a sufficient basis for the jury to conclude that Levine had a scheme for obtaining money through the use of false statements, and that he made false statements concerning the chicken and the lab report. The jury could have also easily found both that a reasonable person would be influenced to part with money and that Levine had the requisite intent to defraud. The record established ample evidence from which a jury could have found that Levine had the intent to extort from Jack-in-the-Box, and that the company had a reasonable fear of economic loss. There was also sufficient evidence in the record for the jury to conclude that at least one of Levine’s communications occurred through transmissions across state borders.

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in excluding portions of witness White’s testimony as hearsay. Levine failed to establish that testimony was admissible under either Fed.R.Evid. 806 or Fed.R.Evid. 803(3).

AFFIRMED.

***

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

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CRISTIAN LEON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 1576

[ November 8, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Barry M. Cohen , Judge; L.T. Case No. 16CF003167AMB

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman,

Assistant Attorney General, West P alm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., W ARNER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Monro Muffler Brake, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/ Robert G. GrossRobert G. GrossChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board 19
Exhibit 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

The
undersigned certify that:

(1) The
accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2010, 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 accompanying Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|                        |                                        | 
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------- | 
|Date:
 November 5, 2010 |                                        | 
|                        | /s/ Scott F.
 Drill                    | 
|                        | Scott F.
 Drill                       
|                        | President
 and Chief Executive Officer
|                        | (principal
 executive officer)        
|                        |                                        | 
|Date:
 November 5, 2010 | /s/ Justin
 W. Shireman                | 
|                        | Justin W.
 Shireman                   
|                        | Vice
 President, Finance and          
|                        | Chief
 Financial Officer              
|                        | (principal
 financial officer)        

23

---
# Official Journal C 144/30 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 144 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5830 April 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 144

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5830 April 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 144/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Fourth supplement to the 33rd complete edition | 1 |
| 2015/C 144/02 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Third supplement to the 33rd complete edition | 25 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 144/01

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Fourth supplement to the 33rd complete edition

1

2015/C 144/02

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Third supplement to the 33rd complete edition

25

---

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

EN
October 20, 2010

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

400 7 th Street SW, Plaza 401

Washington, DC 20591

- 0001

Re: Exemption No. 4298 , Docket No. 23290

Ladies/Gentlemen:

In accordance with Title 14 of the Code o f Federal Regulations (14CFR) § 11.61, the Air Transport Association of

America, Inc. (ATA), on behalf of its member airlines 1 / and other similarly situated part 121 certificate holders,

petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 4 298L (Docket No. 23290). This exemption is sched uled to expire on

March 31, 2011

.

Exemption No. 4298 L provides relief from §§ 121.311(f) and 121.391(d) of Title 14 CFR and permits ATA

member airlines and other similarly situated part 121 certificate holders’ required flight att endants to be located at

the mid

- cabin flight attendant station during takeoff and landing on Boeing 767 airplanes.

The conditions and circumstances, in regard to public interest and equivalent levels of safety, which warranted the

original grant of exemp tion, continue to exist. This exemption and its predecessor, Exemption No. 4298, have been

in use for almost eighteen years with no known compromise of safety.

____________________________________

1/ Operator Members:

A BX Air

, AirTran Airlines, Alaska Airlin es

, American Airlines, ASTAR Air Cargo, Atlas Air, Continental Airlines, Delta

Air Lines, Evergreen International, Federal Express, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Polar Air Cargo, Southwest

Airlines, United Airlines, UPS, US Airways.

Associ ate Members:

Aeromexico, Air Canada, Air Jamaica, and Mexicana.U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

Docket No. 23290

October 20, 2010

Page Two

The renewal of this exemptio n is not a controversial issue. ATA believes that th ere is just cause to waive the

requirement of public notice of this petition. There is no substantial change to the exemption and the renewal of this

exemption is not precedent setting, therefore, ATA requests that publication in the Federal Register be wa ived as

unnecessary.

A summary of this petition as required by 14 CFR §11.81 is attached.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at (202) 626

- 4012.

Very truly yours,

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

OF AMERICA, INC.

By: __________________________

Paul W. Railsback

Director

- Operations

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Suite 1100

Washington, D.C. 20004

- 1707

(202) 626

- 4012

prailsback @airlines.org

AttachmentU.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

Docket No. 23290

October 20, 2010

Attachment

SUMMARY OF ATA PETITION

The Air Transport Association, Inc., on behalf of its member airlines and other similarly situated Part

121 operators, petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 4298 Exemption No. 4298 provides relief

from 14CFR §§ 121.391(d) and 121.311(f) and permits required flight attendant(s) to be located at the

mid

- cabin flight attendant station during takeoff and landing on Boeing 767 aircraft.
Petition for Exemption/Rulemaking

To Whom It May Concern:

I am an operator interested in conduc ting aerial photography with a purchased off

- the

- shelf

, small

, unmanned aircraft system ( UAS ) (Gross weight < 55 lbs). Please note picture below.

I am writing to you to petition the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption under Section

333 to allow the operation of UAS for the purpose of scripted, closed

- set filming for the motion picture and television industry.

1. The UAS will have a gro ss weight < 55 lbs, including energy source(s) and equipment

. 2. The operations will be for the following aircraft described in the operator’s manual: “ Solo User

Manual

. ”

3. The UAS will not be flown at a speed exceeding a ground speed of 50 knots.

4. Flights will be operated at an altitude of no more than 2 00 feet above ground level (AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operator’s manual. All altitudes reported to ATC will

be in feet AGL.

5. The UAS will be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command (PIC) at all

times.

6. All operations will use a visual observer (VO)

, who may be used t o satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times.

7. The operator’s manual is considered acceptable to the FAA and the operator will follow the procedures as outlined in its operator’s manu al

. 8. Prior to each flight the PIC will inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe flight. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft will be prohibited from operating until the necessary main tenance has been performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight.

The PIC has over 100 hours flying similar off

- the

- shelf, small UAS and quadcopters (Gross weight < 55 lbs) as a hobby.

Looking forward to your response. Thank you in a dvance for your time and consideration. Sincerely,

André Alfa

310.666.8426 agalfa@gmail.com
Before the First Division,

June 14, 1967

No. P67/191.

#### Import Associates of America, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 64/10154 (Los Angeles).

Beokworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of synthetic rubber rainwear similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc.*(52 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE/WATERS (CR05-5828FDB) - 1 (206) 553-7970

Judge Burgess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR05-5828FDB

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

) SCHEDULE

BRIANA WATERS, )

)

Defendant. ) )

The Court having considered Waters’ Motion Regarding Surveillance and NSA

Materials and to set Briefing Schedule and the Government’s Response to that Motion,

THE COURT ORDERS that

1. Waters’ opening brief is due November 3, 2006.

2. The Government’s response is due December 1, 2006.

3. Waters’ reply brief, if any, is due December 15, 2006.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 55 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE/WATERS (CR05-5828FDB) - 2 (206) 553-7970

The parties shall be permitted to file overlength briefs. The Court will decide

whether to schedule oral argument after reviewing the parties’ briefs, and, should the Court

decided that oral argument is appropriate, when to schedule that argument.

DONE this 26th day of October, 2006. 

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

Senior United States District Judge

Presented by:

JOHN McKAY

United States Attorney

s/ Mark Bartlett 

MARK BARTLETT

First Assistant United States Attorney

s/ Andrew C. Friedman 

ANDREW C. FRIEDMAN

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-3903

Telephone: (206) 553-7970

Fax: (206) 553-0882

E-mail: Mark.Bartlett@usdoj.gov

Andrew.Friedman@usdoj.gov

Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 55 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING FILING

OF AMENDED COMPLAINT - 1 

The Honorable Franklin D. Burgess 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, a 

North Carolina corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ROB MCKENNA, in his capacity as Attorney 

General of Washington, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. C06-5223-FDB 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

REGARDING FILING OF AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

STIPULATION

 The parties, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate that the subjoined order 

may be entered. 

DATED this ____ day of May, 2006. 

BYRNES & KELLER LLP 

By 

Bradley S. Keller, WSBA #10665 

William H. Walsh, WSBA #21911 

Byrnes & Keller LLP

1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Telephone: (206) 622-2000 

bkeller@byrneskeller.com

wwalsh@byrneskeller.com

ROB MCKENNA 

Attorney General 

By 

 Rene D. Tomisser, WSBA #17509 

Attorney General of Washington 

Torts Division 

P. O. Box 40126 

Olympia, WA 98504-0126 

Telephone: (360) 459-6600 

renet@atg.wa.gov

Case 3:06-cv-05223-FDB Document 11 Filed 05/30/06 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING FILING

OF AMENDED COMPLAINT - 2 

ORDER

 Based upon the foregoing stipulation, plaintiff is hereby granted leave to file and serve 

the attached Amended Complaint, which adds as additional defendants the Members of the 

Washington State Liquor Control Board. 

DATED this 30th day of May 2006. 

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-05223-FDB Document 11 Filed 05/30/06 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING FILING

OF AMENDED COMPLAINT - 3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney certifies that on the 30th day of May, 2006, I electronically 

filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to the following: 

Shannon E. Smith 

Senior Counsel 

Attorney General of Washington 

900 4th Avenue, Suite 2000, TB-14 

Seattle, WA 98164-1012 

ShannonS@atg.wa.gov

Susan Sackett DanPullo 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of the Attorney General 

P.O. Box 40110 

Olympia, WA 98504-0110 

Susand1@atg.wa.gov

Rene D. Tomisser 

Attorney General of Washington 

Torts Division 

P. O. Box 40126 

Olympia, WA 98504-0126 

renet@atg.wa.gov

/s/ Bradley S. Keller 

Byrnes & Keller LLP

1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Telephone: (206) 622-2000 

Facsimile: (206) 622-2522 

bkeller@byrneskeller.com 

Case 3:06-cv-05223-FDB Document 11 Filed 05/30/06 Page 3 of 3