alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert HODGE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-300.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 21, 1978.

*199Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Kurt Marmar, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Ira N. Loewy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and HEN-DRY and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with first degree murder. He was tried and found guilty by a jury of murder in the second degree. By this appeal appellant seeks reversal of his conviction and sentence.

Appellant’s point on appeal presents the question of whether it was reversible error for the trial court to deny appellant’s motion for mistrial based on alleged prejudicial remarks made by the prosecuting attorney both during his opening statement to the jury and in his closing argument.

The grounds relied upon for reversal have been considered in the light of the record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel. We conclude that no reversible error has been made to appear.

The record discloses that the case was fairly tried: that the remarks complained of were not, under the circumstances, such as would constitute prejudicial error; that the verdict is supported by the evidence; and that the rulings of the trial court challenged by appellant did not, on the record and under the law, constitute harmful error. *State v. Jones,*204 So.2d 515 (Fla.1967); *Morgan v. State,*303 So.2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); *Barrett v. State,*266 So.2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); *Reis v. State,*248 So.2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); *Robinson v. State,*145 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Mildred Applebury STIRGUS v. David STIRGUS.

No. 61041.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1977.

In re: Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans and the Judges thereof, applying for Supervisory Writs of Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition.

Writ denied. No error of law.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, J., are of the opinion that a writ should be granted.

DENNIS, J.,

concurs in denial of the writ. Although the local rule appears to be inconsistent with L.C.C.P. Art. 5182 and 5183 which contemplate that the privilege of litigating without prior payment of costs be extended to litigants who are clearly entitled to it from his pleadings and supporting affidavits, our disapproval of the rule will not preclude the trial court from requiring a personal appearance of litigants when such affidavit, or additional supporting data such as questionaires, do not establish that the litigant is entitled to the privilege with reasonable clarity.
#### CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS, Florida, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. FLORIDA NATIONAL PROPERTIES, INC. a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 77-303.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 2, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1978.

Paul J. McDonough, Coral Springs, for appellant.

H. C. Feige of Patterson, Maloney, Blyler & Feige, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

After a review of the record and the arguments of the parties this court is of the view that the trial court was correct in ruling that the ordinance enacted by the appellant, City of Coral Springs, constituted an attempt to levy an unauthorized tax and was therefore invalid. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD, and LETTS, JJ., concur.
#### Ex parte Faye Robertson BURGESS.

77-326.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 24, 1978.

BEATTY, Justice.

Motion to suspend rules granted; writ denied.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the Consolidated Statement of Earnings and the Consolidated Balance Sheet and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        NOV-30-1995  
<PERIOD-END>                             NOV-30-1995  
<CASH>                                         5,700
<SECURITIES>                                       0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                108,486
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (7,920)
<INVENTORY>                                  154,898
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             279,493
<PP&E>                                       168,052
<DEPRECIATION>                             (123,428)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               376,636
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         89,364
<BONDS>                                      152,781
<COMMON>                                      81,899
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                    52,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 376,636
<SALES>                                      595,272
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             601,701
<CGS>                                        447,414
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                580,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            19,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,630
<INCOME-TAX>                                  19,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           21,430
<DISCONTINUED>                              (18,283)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,147
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .10
        

</TABLE>
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1199 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to shorten the waiting period 

for social security disability benefits for individuals with mesothelioma. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8, 2005 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to shorten 

the waiting period for social security disability benefits 

for individuals with mesothelioma. 

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 ‘‘Prompt Disability Pay5 ment to Mesothelioma Victims Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress makes the following findings: 

8 (1) Mesothelioma is a quickly advancing form 

9 of cancer. 
2 

•S 1199 IS

1 (2) Most cases of mesothelioma arise from ex2 posure to asbestos fibers. 

3 (3) The National Cancer Institute estimates 

4 that in 2002, approximately 2,000 new mesothe5 lioma diagnoses were made in the United States. 

6 SEC. 3. SHORTENED WAITING PERIOD FOR SOCIAL SECU7 RITY DISABILITY BENEFITS FOR INDIVID8 UALS WITH MESOTHELIOMA. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223(c)(2) of the Social 

10 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 423 (c)(2)) is amended— 

11 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

12 by inserting ‘‘(or, in the case of an individual with 

13 mesothelioma, 30 days)’’ after ‘‘months’’; and 

14 (2) in subparagraph (B)— 

15 (A) in clause (i), by inserting ‘‘(or, in the 

16 case of an individual with mesothelioma, the 

17 thirteenth month)’’ after ‘‘seventeenth month’’; 

18 and 

19 (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ‘‘(or, in the 

20 case of an individual with mesothelioma, such 

21 thirteenth month)’’ after ‘‘such seventeenth 

22 month’’. 

23 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

24 subsection (a) apply to applications for disability benefits 

25 filed or pending on or after the date of enactment of this 
3 

•S 1199 IS

1 Act and to any individuals with filed applications for such 

2 benefits as of that date who are within a waiting period 

3 on such date. 

Æ
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Missouri Department of Social Services ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W911S7-09-D-0029 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 58944 

Keith L. Baker, Esq. 

Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP 

McLean, VA 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Travis P. Sommer, JA 

CPT Harry M. Parent III, JA 

CPT Tyler L. Davidson, JA 

Trial Attorneys 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On 15 November 2016, the Board sustained ASBCA No. 59191, and remanded the 

appeal to the parties for the negotiation of quantum. Missouri Department of Social 

Services, ASBCA No. 59191, 16-1BCAir36,563 at 178,091, 178,094. ASBCA 

No. 59191 had been consolidated with this appeal, ASBCA No. 58944, but we severed the 

two appeals prior to deciding ASBCA No. 59191. Id. at 178,091. On 9 March 2015, at 

the beginning ofthe hearing of ASBCA Nos. 58944 and 59191, appellant stated, through 

counsel, that "[a]fter careful consideration," it had decided "not to maintain [ASBCA 

No.] 58944 as a separate appeal," and was "not going to pursue as a separate matter; 

[ASBCA No.] 58944" (tr. 1/17-18). Appellant agreed with the Board that appellant "just 

wish[ed] to have the operative facts underlying [ASBCA No. 58944] considered along 

with the facts in [ASBCA No.] 59191 in terms of the total amount of recovery that 

[appellant was] claiming" (tr. 1/18). 

On 12 December 2016, the Board ordered appellant to show cause why, in view of 

the foregoing, ASBCA No. 58944 "should not be deemed withdrawn or dismissed (with 

or without prejudice)." On 9 February 2017, appellant responded, saying that it "believes 

that this issue will soon become moot," because it "has proposed to the [the government] a 

global settlement that will resolve all issues raised in Appeal No. 58944, as part of the 

settlement of the quantum phase of Appeal No. 59191." We find that response inadequate 

to demonstrate that appellant did not, on 9 March 2015, withdraw ASBCA No. 58944. 

We find that appellant withdrew ASBCA No. 58944 on 9 March 2015. 
The appeal is withdrawn and dismissed from the Board's docket, with prejudice. 

Dated: 14 June 2017 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58944, Appeal of Missouri 

Department of Social Services, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1552

AN ACT

To amend Public Law 97–435 to extend the authorization

for the Secretary of the Interior to release certain conditions contained in a patent concerning certain land conveyed by the United States to Eastern Washington University until December 31, 2009.

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

2

S 1552 ES

1 SECTION 1. EASTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAND

2 TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION EXTENSION.

3 Section 1(c) of Public Law 97–435 (96 Stat. 2281)

4 is amended by striking ‘‘five years after the enactment of

5 this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘on December 31, 2009’’.

Passed the Senate December 16, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1552

AN ACT

To amend Public Law 97–435 to extend the auDecember 31, 2009. States to Eastern Washington University until concerning certain land conveyed by the United release certain conditions contained in a patent thorization for the Secretary of the Interior to
_______________________________________ __ 

# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

June 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly
132421(92) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, SC: 132421

v COA: 258397

BERNARD CHAUNCEY MURPHY, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant. Wayne CC: 04-001084-01

___________________ _________________ On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by defendant-appellee for extension of the time for filing his brie f is considered, and it is GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 27, 2007

Clerk
**Exhibit
      32**








**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350**





I,
      Dennis
      W. Doll, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the periodic report
      being filed herewith containing financial statements fully complies with the
      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in said periodic
      report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of Middlesex Water Company for the period covered by
      said
      periodic report.








/s/
                Dennis W. DollDennis
                W. DollChief
                Executive Officer








Date:  November
      2, 2007








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

[110th Congress Public Law 384]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ384.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 4094]]

Public Law 110-384
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To direct the United States Sentencing Commission to assure appropriate 
punishment enhancements for those involved in receiving stolen property 
where that property consists of grave markers of veterans, and for other 
            purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 10, 2008 -  [H.R. 3480]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Let Our 
Veterans Rest in Peace Act of 2008. 28 USC 994 note.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Let Our Veterans Rest in Peace Act of 
2008''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION.

    The Congress finds and declares that--
            (1) every cemetery should do all it can to protect each 
        grave marker, headstone, monument, or other object, intended to 
        permanently mark a grave;
            (2) every citizen of the United States should be watchful 
        and mindful of desecrations of any gravesite and report any such 
        suspected behavior to local, State, or Federal law enforcement 
        authorities; and
            (3) all citizens, including veterans, have earned the right 
        to rest in peace.
SEC. 3. DIRECTION TO THE SENTENCING COMMISSION.

    (a) In General.--Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of 
title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission 
shall review and, if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing 
guidelines and policy statements to ensure the guidelines and policy 
statements provide adequate sentencing enhancements for any offense 
involving the desecration, theft, or trafficking in, a grave marker, 
headstone, monument, or other object, intended to permanently mark a 
veteran's grave.
    (b) Commission Duties.--In carrying out this section, the Sentencing 
Commission shall--
            (1) ensure that the sentences, guidelines, and policy 
        statements relating to offenders convicted of these offenses are 
        appropriately severe and reasonably consistent with other 
        relevant directives and other Federal sentencing guidelines and 
        policy statements;
            (2) make any necessary conforming changes to the Federal 
        sentencing guidelines; and

[[Page 122 STAT. 4095]]

            (3) assure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes 
        of sentencing as set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, 
        United States Code.

    Approved October 10, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3480:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110-647 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            May 19, 21, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 2, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

No. 94-8825 Non-Argument Calendar. Ann McCAULEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. Richard T. WINEGARDEN; Superior Court of Gwinnett, and MichaelJ. Bowers, Attorney General, State of Georgia, DefendantsAppellees. Aug. 4, 1995. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (No. 1:93-cv-2632-ODE), Orinda D. Evans, Judge. Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, CARNES and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: As the district court's order of May 9, 1994 dismissing appellant's second amended complaint indicates, appellant, who allegedly suffers from a Chemical Hypersensitivity Syndrome, brought this suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 ("ADA"), to obtain injunctive relief and money damages because a Georgia superior court judge, appellee Richard T. Winegarden, did not provide her a "chemical free or safe environment" (a filtered environment) on two different occasions when she appeared pro se to prosecute a suit she brought in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia. In this appeal, appellant asks us to vacate the district court's final judgment and to remand the case for further proceedings against appellees Winegarden, Gwinnett County, and the State of Georgia on her claims for money damages and for an injunction enjoining appellees1 Appellant also sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The district court rejected this claim; we do so likewise, finding it to be frivolous. "permanently on any further violations of the ADA." Appellant's Brief at 46. We find no merit in appellant's request and, therefore, affirm. 1 The district court dismissed appellant's complaint on the basis of the following ADA regulation: This part does not require a public entity to provide to individuals with disabilities personal devices, such as wheelchairs; individually prescribed devices, such as prescription eyeglasses or hearing aids; readers for personal use or study; or services of a personal nature including assistance in eating, toileting, or dressing. 28 C.F.R. § 35.135 (1993). We quote from the district court's dispositive order: [p]laintiff wanted Defendants to provide her with a "filtered environment." The [second amended] complaint reveals that Defendants would have had to provide Plaintiff with personal devices in order to give here the accommodation she desired: "life support systems,' ( id., ¶ IV); "life-support bubble,' ( id. ); "required medical aids,' ( id. ); "additional medical aids,' ( id. ) Even absent the admissions in Plaintiff's complaint, the conclusion is inescapable that providing Plaintiff a filtered environment would have required Defendants to provide her with personal devices. Indeed, in this context, a filtered environment, viewed as a whole, may itself be a personal device. Therefore, in view of § 35.135, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the ADA against Defendants. We agree with the district court's analysis of the merits of appellant's ADA claim, and therefore affirm its judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the "Form 10-K") for the
year ended December 31, 2002 of American Insured Mortgage Investors (the
"Issuer").

I, Barry S. Blattman, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and
President, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

(i)  the Form 10-K fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section  13(a) or
     section 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m(a) or
     78o(d)); and

(ii) the  information  contained  in the Form  10-K  fairly  represents,  in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Issuer.


                                           AMERICAN INSURED
                                           MORTGAGE INVESTORS (Registrant)
                                           By: CRIIMI, Inc.
                                               General Partner



March 19, 2003                             /s/ Barry Blattman
--------------                             -------------------------------------
Date                                       Barry S. Blattman
                                           Chairman of the Board,
                                           Chief Executive Officer and President
```

[110th Congress Public Law 396]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ396.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 4211]]

Public Law 110-396
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint Paul, Minnesota, as the ``Mayor 
    William `Bill' Sandberg Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Oct. 13, 
                         2008 -  [H.R. 6229]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MAYOR WILLIAM ``BILL'' SANDBERG POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint Paul, Minnesota, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Mayor William `Bill' Sandberg Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mayor 
William `Bill' Sandberg Post Office Building''.

    Approved October 13, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6229:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            Sept. 17, 18, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 30, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```