alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 3 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 4 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 5 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 6 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 7 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 8 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 9 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 10 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 11 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 12 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 13 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 14 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 15 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 16 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 17 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 18 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 19 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 20 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 21 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 22 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 23 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 24 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 25 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 26 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 27 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 28 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 29 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 30 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 31 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 32 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 33 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 34 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 35 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 36 of 37
Case 4:04-cv-02235-TMB Document 47 Filed 11/23/05 Page 37 of 37
#### Barbara BENJAMIN, Petitioner, v. Winifred Clarke ANTHONY et al., Respondents.

No. 40579.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 25, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-4898

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAUL DOMINGUEZ, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-98-191) Submitted: July 30, 1999 Decided: August 17, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Bryan Emery Gates, Jr., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Arnold L.Husser, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Raul Dominguez was convicted following a jury trial of conspiracy to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846(1994) (Count I), and possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (1994) (Count V). Dominguez was sentenced to seventy-eight months’ imprisonment and sixty months’ imprisonment respectively, to be served concurrently, five years’ supervised release on Count I to be served concurrently to three years’ supervised release on Count V, and a $200 special assessment. Finding no error, we affirm. On appeal, Dominguez contends that the district court erred in not awarding a reduction in his base offense level for acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (1997). We find that the district court’s denial of the reduction for acceptance of responsibility was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Castner , 50 F.3d 1267, 1279-80 (4th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we affirm Dominguez’s sentence. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Abraham DONALDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. GG-93.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 27, 1978.

As Corrected March 21, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1978.

*352Margaret Good, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Raymond L. Markey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of an adjudication of guilt of an assault in a lewd, lascivious or indecent manner on a female child under the age of 14 years in violation of F.S. 800.04 as a result of which he was committed for treatment and rehabilitation pursuant to F.S. 801.041 (apparently intending F.S. 801.091). He was initially indicted for two offenses in a two count indictment, the first count alleging a violation of F.S. 794.021(1) (apparently intending to allege a violation of F.S. 794.011(2)) and the second count in violation of F.S. 800.04. The trial court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal as to count one but denied the motion as to count two, the count of which he was convicted.

We have carefully considered the oral argument of able counsel in light of their briefs and the record on appeal.

By his first point appellant seeks our determination that the trial court erred in denying his pre-trial motion to strike count two and his subsequent motion in arrest of judgment, alleging that that count fails to state a crime under the laws of the State of Florida. We have carefully examined count two of the indictment and find that although it certainly is not a model it does allege a crime, viz: a violation of F.S. 800.-04.

Appellant next urges that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case upon the ground that the state failed to prove a material allegation of the indictment. We find that point to be without merit. Although there was a variance, not every variance between the allegation and proof is fatal. *(Howlett v. State,*260 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972))

We also find that appellant may not prevail on his third point relating to the failure of the trial court to give an instruction because a careful review of the record reveals that the instruction the omission of which is now alleged to be error was never requested and the failure to give that particular instruction is not fundamental error.

 Finally, appellant urges that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request that the jury be permitted to take the indictment to the jury room during *353deliberations. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.400 provides that “The court may permit the jury, upon retiring for deliberation, to take to the jury room: (a) a copy of the charges against the defendant * * * However that rule is permissive and not mandatory. We do not find that the learned trial judge abused his discretion in denying appellant’s request.

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., BOYER, J, and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),                as                applicable, 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                at the dates and for the periods indicated. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 15, 2008  | /s/ Weibing                Lu                                                            |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     | Weibing                  LuChief                  Executive Officer(Principal                  Executive Officer)                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|                     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24534]



[[Page 48480]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

32 CFR Part 505


The Army Privacy Program

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD.
ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army deleted an exempt Privacy Act 
system of records notice on July 7, 1997 at 62 FR 36266. This action 
deletes the corresponding exemption rule from 32 CFR part 505.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Janice Thornton at (703) 806-4390 
or DSN 656-4390.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
Executive Order 12866.  It has been determined that this Privacy Act 
rule for the Department of Defense does not constitute `significant 
regulatory action'. Analysis of the rule indicates that it does not 
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; does not 
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency; does not materially alter the 
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs 
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; does not raise 
novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 
12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. It has been determined that this Privacy 
Act rule for the Department of Defense does not have significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is 
concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of 
records within the Department of Defense.
Paperwork Reduction Act. It has been determined that this Privacy Act 
rule for the Department of Defense imposes no information requirements 
beyond the Department of Defense and that the information collected 
within the Department of Defense is necessary and consistent with 5 
U.S.C. 552a, known as the Privacy Act, and 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR part 505

    Privacy.
    Accordingly, 32 CFR part 505 is amended as follows:
    1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 505 continues to read as 
follows:
    Authority: Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat 1896 (5 U.S.C.552a).
    2. Section 505.5 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(e)(20) as follows:


Sec. 505.5  Exemptions.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (20) [Reserved].
* * * * *
    Dated: September 11, 1997.

L. M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense
[FR Doc. 97-24534 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-F
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsR4 airfoil data corrected for sidewall boundary-layer effects in the Langley 0.3-meter transonic cryogenic tunnelCorrected aerodynamic data for the R4 airfoil at Mach numbers from 0.60 to 0.78 and angles of attack from -2.0 deg. to 4.5 deg. are presented. The test Reynolds numbers were 4 million, 6 million, 10 million, 15 million, 30 million, and 40 million based on the 152.32-mm chord of the airfoil. Corrections for data were previously published in NASA Technical Memorandum 85739. The design goal of a normal-force coefficient of 0.65 at a Mach number of 0.73 and a Reynolds number of 30 million was successfully obtained with this airfoil.Document ID19860015191Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsJenkins, R. V.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1986Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TP-2565L-16066NAS 1.60:2565Accession Number86N24662Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-61-01-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860015191.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
```

[115th Congress Public Law 147]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 1231]]

Public Law 115-147
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 207 Glenside Avenue in Wyncote, Pennsylvania, as the ``Staff Sergeant 
   Peter Taub Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Mar. 23, 2018 -  [H.R. 
                                2873]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT PETER TAUB POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 207 Glenside Avenue in Wyncote, Pennsylvania, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Staff Sergeant Peter Taub 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 ``Staff 
Sergeant Peter Taub Post Office Building''.

    Approved March 23, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2873:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 163 (2017):
                                    Nov. 15, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 164 (2018):
                                    Mar. 7, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 24, 2014

p0616 

# Order

Clerk June 24, 2014

148569

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

P laintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148569

COA: 318428

Wayne CC: 05

- 007896

- FC

KEVIN DAMOND JOHNSON

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 3 , 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### Daniel L. GINSBERG v. Chief Judge PEARSON et al.

No. 39113.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 1969.

Prohibition denied without opinion.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00632-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2017-FAM-61585-5

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed. The Court orders the 

judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant, although she is exempt from payment due to her inability to pay costs.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 4, 2019
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.9


FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC.
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
As of September 30, 2015
The following sets forth the fees and other payments that non-employee directors of Franklin Resources, Inc. (“Franklin”) are entitled to receive as members of the Board of Directors of Franklin (the “Franklin Board”).  The Franklin Board last approved changes in such compensation structure in December 2013 (effective March 11, 2014).   
The non-employee Franklin director designated by the independent directors of the Franklin Board as the lead independent director of the Franklin Board is entitled to receive an annual lead director retainer fee of $20,000 (one-fourth of which is paid quarterly).
Non-employee Franklin directors are entitled to receive an annual Franklin Board retainer fee of $85,000 (one-fourth of which is paid quarterly), plus $5,000 for each Franklin Board meeting attended by such director in excess of the five regularly scheduled Franklin Board meetings per fiscal year, and an annual equity award valued at $125,000 (rounded up to the nearest whole share) for approval on the date of each annual organizational meeting of the Franklin Board. 
Non-employee Franklin directors who serve on Franklin Board committees are entitled to be paid $1,500 per committee meeting attended. Additionally, the Chairperson of the Franklin Audit Committee is entitled to receive an annual retainer fee of $15,000 (one-fourth of which is paid quarterly), and the Chairpersons of the Franklin Compensation Committee and the Franklin Corporate Governance Committee are each entitled to receive an annual retainer fee of $10,000 (one-fourth of which is paid quarterly).
In addition, Franklin reimburses directors for certain expenses incurred in connection with attending Franklin Board and committee meetings as well as other related events, including travel, hotel accommodations, meals and other incidental expenses for the director and his or her spouse accompanying the director in connection with such events. Franklin may also, from time to time, provide directors and their spouses with token gifts of nominal value. 
Franklin also allows directors to defer payment of their directors’ fees, and to treat the deferred amounts as hypothetical investments in Franklin common stock or Franklin Templeton mutual funds. The terms of any such deferred payment arrangements are set forth in separate documentation between Franklin and the particular directors in accordance with Franklin’s 2006 Directors Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated.
# EUR-Lex - 51996PC0634 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 51996PC0634

**Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Agreement establishing conditions for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway between the European Community on the one hand, and the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Slovak Republic on the other /* COM/96/0634 FINAL - CNS 96/0301 */ **

*
Official Journal C 068 , 05/03/1997 P. 0011 *

Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement establishing conditions for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway between the European Community on the one hand, and the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Slovak Republic on the other (97/C 68/08) COM(96) 634 final - 96/0301(CNS)

(Submitted by the Commission on 13 December 1996)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 75 in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 228 (2) and the first subparagraph of Article 228 (3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,

Whereas the Agreement establishing conditions for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway between the European Community on the one hand, and the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Slovak Republic on the other should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement establishing conditions for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway between the European Community on the one hand, and the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Slovak Republic on the other, the Protocols annexed thereto and the declarations attached thereto are hereby approved on behalf of the European Community.

The text of the Agreement as well as the Protocols annexed thereto are attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Community, deposit the act of approval provided for in Article 24 of the Agreement.