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

No. M-429.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 11, 1970.

*136Earl M. Johnson, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Horace A. Knowlton, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

RAWLS, Judge.

Appellant-defendant Harris appeals from a jury verdict and judgment of guilty of murder in the first degree and a life sentence.

Appellant asserts as his sole point on appeal that the trial court erred in striking all of his testimony as irrelevant.

Harris pleaded not guilty to the indictment of first degree murder of Fannie Mae Anderson and moved for a bifurcated trial, which motion was denied. The evidence presented by the State conclusively showed that Harris, before witnesses, took a knife from the kitchen and went into the living room where he stabbed Fannie Mae Anderson in the neck while she was sleeping on the sofa. Fannie died. After receiving extensive warnings as to his constitutional rights, Harris confessed. A review of this record discloses that there is no question as to appellant’s guilt.

Appellant’s complaint concerns the striking of his testimony by the trial judge. After the State concluded its case, on direct examination Harris testified as to events transpiring prior to the time he and Fannie returned home on the night of the murder. These events pertained to matters unrelated to the crime. Appellant did not testify in any respect with reference to the commission of the crime. When on cross-examination appellant was asked how he procured the knife, the defense counsel objected. After some conferences at the bar, the court finally instructed the jury as follows:

> “Members of the jury, you may recall when the Assistant State Attorney inquired with reference to the particular offense, it was objected to on the ground that it was not within the scope of cross examination. In other words, that there had been no direct examination relating to the offense. The Court will take the position that unless the testimony relates to the offense, it’s wholly immaterial and should be stricken. For that reason, the witness having testified to nothing relating to this particular offense with which he is charged, his testimony will be stricken and you are directed to disregard his testimony in arriving at your verdict.”

We agree with the court’s instruction and the State’s position that in restricting the defendant’s direct testimony to matters not connected up with the offense charged, such matters were immaterial. If it had been appellant’s purpose to lay a foundation by testifying as to these incidents and connecting same to the offense charged, then it might well have been error for the trial court to strike such testimony. We further conclude in light of the jury’s recommendation for mercy that even terming the action of the trial court as error, such was harmless error in view of the uncontradicted evidence of a number of eyewitnesses and the confession of appellant which reflected that he knowingly and cold-bloodedly murdered the decedent.

The judgment appealed is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          38,125
<SECURITIES>                                     2,092
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,861
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,189)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,097
<PP&E>                                          44,401
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,942)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 438,981
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,416
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                     380,140
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   438,981
<SALES>                                         87,927
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,927
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  135,689
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,988)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 356
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (46,130)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,050)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (40,080)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (40,080)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.01)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48882-48883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24631]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management Alaska
[AK-962-1410-00-P]


Notice for Publication (AA-9260); Alaska Native Claims Selection

    In accordance with Departmental regulation 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice 
is hereby given that a decision to issue conveyance under the 
provisions of Sec. 14(h)(1) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
of December 18, 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1601, 1613(h)(1), will be issued to 
Calista Corporation for approximately 26.9 acres. The lands involved 
are in the vicinity of Nunivak Island, Alaska.

Seward Meridian, Alaska

T. 4 S., R. 98 W.,
    Secs. 4 and 9.

    A notice of the decision will be published once a week, for four 
(4) consecutive weeks, in the Anchorage Daily News. Copies of the 
decision may be obtained by contacting the Alaska State Office of the 
Bureau of Land Management, 222 West Seventh

[[Page 48883]]

Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599 (907) 271-5960).
    Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected 
by the decision, an agency of the Federal government or regional 
corporation, shall have until October 17, 1997 to file an appeal. 
However, parties receiving service by certified mail shall have 30 days 
from the date of receipt to file an appeal. Appeals must be filed in 
the Bureau of Land Management at the address identified above, where 
the requirements for filing an appeal may be obtained. Parties who do 
not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 
4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.
Patricia A. Baker,
Land Law Examiner, ANCSA Team, Branch of 962 Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 97-24631 Filed 9-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
Exhibit 11.1	Computation of net loss per share

Calculation of weighted average common shares outstanding for the
three and six month period ended June 30, 2002.

				  Three months ended		      Six months 	ended
					June 30,				June 30,
				2002		2001		2002		2001
Weighted average shares
Basic and diluted    109,777,297  41,224,313   80,491,060 	39,037,381

Net loss		   $(1,141,831)  $(319,935) $ (2,007,842)	$ (575,795)

Basic and diluted
net loss per share    $	(0.01)	$  (0.01)	$  (0.02)	$	(0.01)
.. 

SERVED: August 19, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ABO SUPPLY LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. F AA-2013-0713 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012SW700236) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Serv · 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Scott L. Johnston, Respondent's Counsel 

Givens & Johnston, PLLC 

950 Echo Lane, Suite 360 

. Houston, TX 77024-2788 

TEL: 713-932-1540 

FAX: 713-932-1542 

WATTS: 800-285-8042 

ONE COPY 

EMAIL: sjohnston@givensjohnston.com 

James Archier, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region, ASW -7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Suite 679 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5074 

FAX: 817-222-5945/5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS Nos. FAA-2013-0713 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Bailey COOK, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-1023.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 8, 1977.

Rehearing Denied July 11, 1977.

Oscar J. Pena, Laredo, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U. S. Atty., Mary L. Sinderson, George A. Kelt, Jr., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before GEWIN, GEE and FAY, Circuit Judges.

GEE, Circuit Judge:

Appellant was convicted of possessing, with intent to distribute, 497 pounds of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(l)(1970), and was sentenced to serve three years with a special parole term of two years. Appellant complains that the Border Patrol did not have probable cause to search his automobile at the Randado, Texas, checkpoint. In light of our decision today that the Randado checkpoint is a functional equivalent of the border, *United States v. Wilson,*553 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1977), we need not inquire whether probable cause existed to search the trunk of appellant’s car. His conviction is

AFFIRMED.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Building an inclusive workforce: a four-step reference guide to recruiting,hiring, and retaining employees with disabilities.**
 
2012 | 2017 | 2019
2021
 
SuDoc Number:L 41.8:IN 2/
Item Number:0783-F-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001051919
 
August 24, 2018
Exhibit 31.1  I, Dempsey Mork, certify that:  1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report for the period ended March 31, 2010 on Form 10-Q of China Holdings, 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)) for the registrant and have:  a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c)           Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  May 7, 2010  /s/ Dempsey Mork Dempsey Mork Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1



         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Numbers 33-92708, 33-97050, 333-07631, 33-97048,
333-31913, 333-31915, and 33-00150) and in the Prospectuses constituting part of
the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Numbers 333-16079, 333-24261, and
333-24333) of HealthPlan Services Corporation of our report dated March 18,
1998, appearing on page F-1 of this Form 10-K.



/s/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
------------------------
Price Waterhouse LLP
Tampa, Florida
March 26, 1998
Exhibit
32.2




WRITTEN
STATEMENT


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Amendment No. 2 to Quarterly Report of China 3C Group and
its subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), the undersigned, Weidong Huang, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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.




May
      7, 2009/s/ Weidong HuangWeidong
      HuangChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
### The Salton Sea region, California: A geographic, geologic, and hydrologic reconnaissance, with a guide to desert watering places

By: John Stafford Brown

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp497

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### FOUR SEASONS, INC. v. NEW ORLEANS SILVERSMITHS, INC., Paul J. Leaman, Jr., and Hans Luetkemeler.

No. 3957.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 1, 1969.

Walter F. Gemeinhardt, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Morphy & Freeman, A. D. Freeman, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Before REDMANN, BARNETTE and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that this court has already rejected the defenses of appellant to this eviction action in a previous appeal between the same parties, reported at 223 So.2d 686.

Our prior judgment was in favor of defendant, although our opinion obiter said certain of defendant’s defenses were not valid. Apart from obvious questions of the binding effect of obiter dicta, especially in favor of a party against whom judgment was in fact rendered, we cannot on motion to dismiss give the full appellate review necessary to decide whether the issues on this appeal are the same as those on a prior appeal, and decide whether our prior dicta should now become holding. This is the merits of the appeal. (See Black v. Meadowview Homes, Inc., 201 So.2d 218, 219 (La.App.1967), for its view of the analogous problem of res judicata.)

The motion to dismiss is accordingly denied.

Motion to dismiss denied.
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

In connection with the quarterly Report of GL Energy and Exploration,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  each of the undersigned,  in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         1.     the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.     the information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operation of the
Company.


Dated:  May 13, 2004                       /s/ Donald Byers
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Name: Donald Byers
                                           Title: Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  May 13, 2004                       /s/ Donald Byers
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Name: Donald Byers
                                           Title: Chief Financial Officer
```

[115th Congress Public Law 156]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 1240]]

Public Law 115-156
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to release on behalf of the 
 United States the condition that certain lands conveyed to the City of 
    Old Town, Maine, be used for a municipal airport, and for other 
            purposes. <<NOTE: Mar. 26, 2018 -  [H.R. 1177]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Removing 
Outdated Restrictions to Allow for Job Growth Act.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Removing Outdated Restrictions to 
Allow for Job Growth Act''.
SEC. 2. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST.

    (a) Release.--Notwithstanding section 32(c) of the Bankhead-Jones 
Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1011(c)), if the City of Old Town, Maine, 
makes a written request to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary 
shall release, convey, and quitclaim, without monetary consideration, 
all rights, title, and interest of the United States in and to the lands 
specified in subsection (b).
    (b) Lands Specified.--The lands subject to subsection (a) include 
only the lands--
            (1) conveyed by the United States to the City of Old Town, 
        Maine, under section 32(c) of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act 
        (7 U.S.C. 1011(c)) by the deed dated June 5, 1941;
            (2) proposed for conveyance by the City of Old Town, Maine, 
        for the purpose of economic development; and
            (3) described in the written request submitted by the City 
        of Old Town, Maine, to the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to 
        subsection (a).

    Approved March 26, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1177:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115-124 (Comm. on Agriculture).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 163 (2017):
                                    May 17, considered and passed House.
                                                        Vol. 164 (2018):
                                    Mar. 8, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Thundiyil/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 11/18/2011 10:56 AM 

Subject: FW: E.O. 12866 Meeting on EGU MACT Rule 

Hi all, 

Consistent with the EOs, attached is the handout from the meeting 

yesterday. 

 

Regards, 

Cortney 

 

 

-----Original Appointment----- 

From: Echols, Mabel E. 

When: Thursday, November 17, 2011 3:00 PM-3:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern 

Time 

(US & Canada). 

Where: Room 530 Eisenhower Executive Office Building 

 

 

Carrie Jenks, M.J. Bradley & Associates, LLC requested this meeting on 

behalf of the Clean Energy Group. 

2060AP52_2011_11_17_MJBradley_Handout.pdf
#### Martin William LeHEW v. STATE.

No. 39177.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.