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

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1015

_____________________________

SAMUEL WHITE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

September 19, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Samuel White, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
33797.

#### SMITH v. THE STATE.

Jordan, Justice.

The appellant was convicted of the murder of her husband, and was given a sentence of life imprisonment. *225On appeal she contends that the court erred in charging on the "presumption of malice,” and "implied malice,” and in not charging that the evidence did not raise a presumption of malice.

Argued July 11, 1978

Decided September 6, 1978

Rehearing denied September 26, 1978.

*Guy Velpoe Roberts, Jr.,*for appellant.

*D. E. Turk, District Attorney, Gary C. Christy, Assistant District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, William B. Hill, Jr., Staff Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

The court did not charge on the "presumption of malice.” He gave the definition of implied malice as stated in the statute defining murder. Code Ann. § 26-1101 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1276).

Under the evidence the court did not err in presenting the issue of implied malice to the jury, and did not err in failing to charge that the evidence did not raise a presumption of malice. See *Jones v. State,*234 Ga. 648 (217 SE2d 597) (1975).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9508]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1696-DR]


West Virginia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-1696-DR), dated May 1, 2007, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include the 
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President 
in his declaration of May 1, 2007:

Barbour, Gilmer, Grant, Hardy, Lewis, McDowell, Pendleton, 
Pocahontas, Putnam, Upshur, and Webster Counties for Public 
Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 
Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs, 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E7-9508 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
No. 74-5833.

#### Messina *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 39149.

#### Protests 88520-G, etc., of Saks Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that certain of the articles are in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to the merchandise involved in Abstract 37230 or *Amberg*v. *United States*(T. D. 46204). The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
33954.

#### JARRELL v. HOPPER.

Marshall, Justice.

The appellant, David Alfred Jarrell, was convicted in the Gwinnett Superior Court of kidnapping, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and murder. On direct appeal to this court, the death sentence for armed robbery was set aside, but the armed robbery conviction was sustained, as were the remaining convictions and sentences. *See Jarrell v. State,*234 Ga. 410 (216 SE2d 258) (1975), cert. den., 428 U. S. 910 (1976). Jarrell’s petition *618for habeas corpus relief in the Tattnall Superior Court was denied. We granted his application to appeal.

Submitted August 25, 1978

Decided November 7, 1978

Rehearing denied November 30, 1978.

*James R. Venable,*for appellant.

*Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, John W. Dunsmore, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

In this appeal, Jarrell makes essentially two arguments.

First, he argues that the convictions can not stand because the jury was biased and prejudiced against him. On direct appeal, this court held that Jarrell’s sentences of death were not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor. *Jarrell v. State,*234 Ga. 410, supra, p. 426. In the present appeal, Jarrell makes no showing of jury bias or prejudice aside from the fact that the jury convicted him of all the offenses charged. This argument is patently without merit.

Secondly, Jarrell complains that the state did not set out in the indictment any of the aggravating circumstances used to support imposition of the death penalty. This question has previously been decided adversely to the appellant. *See House v. Stynchcombe,*239 Ga. 222 (2) (236 SE2d 353) (1977) and cits.

The errors enumerated by the appellant having been found to be without merit, the superior court’s denial of habeas relief is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Johnson Brothers *v.*United States

No. 6522.

Entry No. 701791, etc.

Invoices dated Stoke on Trent, England, June 1943, etc.

Certified June 1943, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 20, 1943, etc.

(Decided November 15, 1946)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Xeefe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1224 

To amend Public Law 106–392 to maintain annual base funding for the 

Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs through fiscal 

year 2023. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2011 

Mr. BINGAMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 106–392 to maintain annual base 

funding for the Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs through fiscal year 2023. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bureau of Reclamation 

5 Fish Recovery Programs Reauthorization Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF FISH RECOVERY PRO7 GRAMS. 

8 Section 3(d)(2) of Public Law 106–392 (114 Stat. 

9 1604 and 1605) is amended by inserting at the end the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1224 IS

1 following: ‘‘For fiscal years 2012 through 2023, there are 

2 hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 

3 be necessary to provide for the annual base funding for 

4 the Recovery Implementation Programs above and beyond 

5 the continued use of power revenues to fund the operation 

6 and maintenance of capital projects and monitoring.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.1



                               KYLE L. TINGLE, CPA








To Whom It May Concern:                                       August 10, 2002


The firm of Kyle L. Tingle, CPA, LLC consents to the inclusion of his report of
August 10, 2002 accompanying the audited financial statements of Huile' Oil &
Gas, Inc., as of June 30, 2002 and December 31, 2001, in the Form 10QSB with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Very truly yours,


/s/ Kyle L. Tingle
________________________
Kyle L. Tingle, CPA, LLC















        P.O. Box 50141, Henderson, Nevada 89016, Phone: (702) 434-8452,
               Fax: (702) 436-4218, e-mail: Ktingle@worldnet.att.
89–008 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 115–1090 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO THE 

HOUSE AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO THE BILL (H.R. 

695) TO AMEND THE NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 1993 TO ESTABLISH A VOLUNTARY NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND 

CHECK SYSTEM AND CRIMINAL HISTORY REVIEW PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO, RELATED TO THEIR EMPLOYMENT, HAVE ACCESS TO CHILDREN, THE ELDERLY, OR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

DECEMBER 20, 2018.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. COLE, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 1183] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 1183, by a record vote of 8 to 2, report the same to the 

House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of the Senate 

amendment to H.R. 695, the Department of Defense Appropriations 

Act, 2018 [Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2019]. The resolution makes in order a motion offered by the chair 

of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House 

concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 695 with an amendment 

consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115–88. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the motion. 

The resolution provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The resolution provides one hour 

of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair 

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The waiver of all points of order against consideration of the motion includes a waiver of section 306 of the Congressional Budget 

Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget unless referred to or reported 

by the Budget Committee. 

2 

Rules Committee record vote No. 286 

Motion by Mr. Cole to report the rule. Adopted: 8–2 

Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote 

Mr. Cole ............................................................ Yea Mr. McGovern ................................................... Nay 

Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea Mr. Hastings of Florida ................................... ...................

Mr. Burgess ...................................................... Yea Mr. Polis ........................................................... ...................

Mr. Collins ........................................................ Yea Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay 

Mr. Byrne .......................................................... Yea 

Mr. Newhouse ................................................... ...................

Mr. Buck ........................................................... Yea 

Ms. Cheney ....................................................... Yea 

Mr. Sessions, Chairman ................................... Yea 

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IRMA PUTRI WIRAYA,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 71133

Agency No. A096

- 351

- 599

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 18, 2017 **

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Irma Putri Wiraya, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) March 13, 2015, order denying her

motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider and review de novo claims

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JAN 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 71133

of due process violations. Cano

- Merida v. INS

, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002)

.

We deny the petition for review.

We do not consider Wiraya’s contention that she timely filed her motion to

reopen proceedings, or her contention concerning the sufficiency of her motion to

reopen, which were previously reviewed by this court in Wiraya v. Holder , 585

Fed. Appx. 495 (9th Cir. 2014).

On remand from this court, in denying Wiraya’s motion to reconsider, the

BIA found that the contents of Wiraya’s documents did not establish any material

change in conditions in Indonesia. The BIA did not abuse discretion in denying

Wiraya’s motion to reconsider. See Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th

Cir. 2010) (court “defer[s] to the BIA’s exercise of d iscretion unless it acted

arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”) ; see also Toufighi v. Mukasey , 538

F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence with

motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had ch anged)

.

We reject Wi raya’s contentions that the BIA, on remand, failed to comply

with this court’s order, and that the BIA erred by not soliciting supplemental

briefing or holding oral arguments . Thus

, Wiraya’s due process claims fail. S ee

Lata v. INS , 2 04 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) ( requiring error to prevail on a3 15

- 71133

due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
No. 43195.

#### Protests 848535-G, etc., of S. H. Kress & Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in. question is similar to that involved in Abstract 41517. The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1537 was therefore sustained.
#### ILLINOIS, ex rel. James E. RYAN, Attorney General of Illinois, petitioner, v. James TOWERS.

No. 98-1657.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 14, 1999.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ GERALD ALLEN PERRY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES , Defendant

- Appellee

.

__________________________ 201 3-5120

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 13

- CV -0 332 , Judge Lynn J. Bush

.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ O R D E R Gerald Allen Perry moves without opposition for an extension of time of 20 days to file his brief. Upon consideration thereof , IT IS ORDERED THAT (1) Perry’s motion is granted

. Case: 13-5120 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 11/27/2013PERRY v. US 2 (2) The United States should calculate its brief due date from the date of filing of this order.

F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court s24 Case: 13-5120 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 11/27/2013
Exhibit 11.1   


                                   COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                          Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                        (Unaudited)

                                      Six months              Quarter
                                  ended January 31,      ended January 31,
                                            
                              1997          1996        1997         1996
Net income (loss)
  applicable to
  common stock             $ (771,896)  $ (305,433)  $ (297,622)  $ (131,225)

Common and common
  equivalent shares -
    primary:
  Weighted average common
    shares outstanding      5,905,943    5,822,271    5,908,786    5,830,591
  Adjustments for assumed
    exercise of stock
    options                    65,081*      30,664*      64,279*      57,610*
  Adjustments for assumed
    exercise of stock
    warrants                   11,293*       2,489*      11,232*      23,492*
  Weighted average number of
    common and common
    equivalent shares
    outstanding             5,982,317    5,855,424    5,984,297    5,911,693

Common and common equivalent
    shares - fully diluted:
  Weighted average common
    shares outstanding      5,905,943    5,822,271    5,908,786    5,830,591
  Adjustments for assumed
    exercise of stock
    options                    86,115*      73,016*      86,115*      73,016*
  Adjustments for assumed
    exercise of stock
    warrants                   12,886*       7,397*      12,886*      35,385*
  Weighted average number
    of common and common
    equivalent shares
    outstanding             6,004,944    5,902,684    6,007,787    5,938,992

Net income (loss) per
  share of common stock:
    Primary and fully
      diluted              $    (0.13)  $    (0.05)  $    (0.05)  $    (0.02)

* Anti-dilutive.

These calculations are submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item 601
  (b) (11) which differs from the requirements of paragraph 40 of Accounting
  Principles Board Opinion No. 15 because they produce an anti-dilutive result.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of
American Physicians Capital, Inc. (the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1) The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


Date:  May 10, 2004


/s/ R. Kevin Clinton
------------------------------------------
R. Kevin Clinton
President and Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Frank H. Freund
------------------------------------------
Frank H. Freund
Senior Executive Vice President, Treasurer
And Chief Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Jeffrey B. Park, certify that:



| | 1. |  | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Jacuzzi Brands, Inc. (formerly  U.S. Industries,
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; and
|
| | 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.                       

November 25, 2003

|                                                  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ JEFFREY B. PARK                               |  | 
|                                                 
|Jeffrey B. Park                                   |  | 
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|(Principal Financial Officer)                     |  | 

77
September 13 , 2012



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROBERT JAMES BEAZLEY AND VEA ANN BILA , Appellant s

NO. 14

- 12

- 00446

- CV V.

CITY OF KEMAH , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on February 6, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that each party shall pa y its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0242 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. JOURNEY RYDER JOHN WIENKE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER**
Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, Court Reporter Kendra A. Steppler is granted an extension of time to and including October 1 , 2020, within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 3 2020

08/03/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0242
EXHIBIT 32.1

  Certification by the Principal 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


  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of
  Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., a limited partnership organized
  under the laws of the State of Delaware (the "Partnership"), does
  hereby certify that, to the best of such officer's knowledge:

     1.   The accompanying Quarterly Report of the Partnership on Form
	  10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report")
	  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
	  15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of the Partnership.



                                          /s/ E.J. Holm
                                          __________________________
                                          E. J. Holm
                                          President
                                          November 12, 2004



                                          /s/ Paul Bailey
                                          ___________________________
                                          Paul Bailey
                                          Vice President and Chief
                                          Financial Officer
                                          November 12, 2004