alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 4:13-cr-00221-MWB Document 102 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 11
Case 4:13-cr-00221-MWB Document 102 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 11
Case 4:13-cr-00221-MWB Document 102 Filed 08/25/15 Page 3 of 11
Case 4:13-cr-00221-MWB Document 102 Filed 08/25/15 Page 4 of 11
Case 4:13-cr-00221-MWB Document 102 Filed 08/25/15 Page 5 of 11
Case 4:13-cr-00221-MWB Document 102 Filed 08/25/15 Page 6 of 11
Case 4:13-cr-00221-MWB Document 102 Filed 08/25/15 Page 7 of 11
Case 4:13-cr-00221-MWB Document 102 Filed 08/25/15 Page 8 of 11
Case 4:13-cr-00221-MWB Document 102 Filed 08/25/15 Page 9 of 11
Case 4:13-cr-00221-MWB Document 102 Filed 08/25/15 Page 10 of 11
Case 4:13-cr-00221-MWB Document 102 Filed 08/25/15 Page 11 of 11
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24454]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP96-45-006]


Northern Border Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Change in 
FERC Gas Tariff

September 10, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 3, 1997, Northern Border Pipeline 
Company (Northern Border) tendered for filing to become part of 
Northern Border Pipeline Company's FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective as listed 
below:

Tariff Sheet/Effective Date

Second Revised Sheet Number 102--August 1, 1997
Original Sheet Number 102A--August 1, 1997
Fourth Revised Sheet Number 108--August 1, 1997
Second Revised Sheet Number 109--June 1, 1996
Third Revised Sheet Number 110--June 1, 1996
First Revised Sheet Number 113--August 1, 1997
Second Revised Sheet Number 114--August 1, 1997
Original Sheet Number 114A--August 1, 1997
Fourth Revised Sheet Number 117--June 1, 1996
    Northern Border The tariff sheets are being filed in compliance 
with the October 15, 1996 Stipulation and Agreement (S&A) and the 
approval, with one minor modification, of such in the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) order issued August 1, 1997 in 
Docket No. RP96-45-004 (August 1 Order). Northern Border is modifying 
tariff revision numbers, pagination, applicable effective dates and 
updating the Commission's record of Northern Border's tariff in 
accordance with the Commission's approval of the S&A in its August 1 
Order. Such filing is also made necessary due to the issuance of 
overlapping tariff sheets in Northern Border's GISB compliance tariff 
filings which became effective subsequent to the filing of the S&A but 
prior to its approval.
    Northern Border states that copies of this filing have been sent to 
all of its contracted shippers and interested state regulatory 
commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street N.E., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary,
[FR Doc. 97-24454 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Margaret ADAMS, as personal representative of the Estate of Harlem Alford Carlson, Deceased, Appellant, v. WARREN RENTAL & SERVICE CENTER, INC., Appellee.

No. FF-51.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 30, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1977.

*556R. P. Warfield, of Levin, Warfield, Mid-dlebrooks, Graff, Mabie, Rosenbloum & Ma-gie, Pensacola, for appellant.

Robert P. Gaines, of Beggs & Lane, Pensacola, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Warren Rental & Service Center, Inc., rented a scaffold to George Atwell, a painting contractor. Atwell purportedly subcontracted the painting of the San Carlos Hotel, a seven-story building, to Henry Carlson. Harlem Alford Carlson (appellant’s son and Henry’s brother) was employed by Henry, and while spray painting the eaves of the hotel fell to the pavement and died as a result of the injuries suffered. Margaret Adams, decedent’s mother and personal representative, appeals a summary final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Warren.

Appellant’s theory as to Warren’s liability is that it negligently installed and placed into operation a scaffold that was unsafe and dangerous for persons to use, in that no permanent guard rails were installed on each end. When delivered by Warren and placed into service, the motors were located near each end of the scaffold and served as end rails. Warren delivered, along with the scaffold, two safety belts and two tie back belts. Henry Carlson testified that from time to time he moved the motors inward in order for the painter to get to the very end of the scaffolding. The uncontroverted evidence is that decedent, Harlem Carlson, situated himself outside the motor on the end of the scaffold without utilizing the safety equipment furnished by Warren and, while standing on the lengthwise pipe rails of the scaffold in such a precarious position, lost his balance and fell to the pavement.

The trial court, upon these facts, correctly entered a summary judgment for defendant Warren.

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., and RAWLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.
#### Arvah C. McCLENDON, d/b/a McClendon Building Service v. Charles MOSCHELLA, Edward Anderson and Bankers Trust Savings and Loan Association.

No. 49734.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 23, 1977.

Everett E. Cook, Gulfport, for appellant.

Bryant & Stennis; Grier J. Gregory, Gulf-port, Robinson & Goodman, Stuart Robinson, Jackson, Eaton, Cottrell, Galloway & Lang, Charles R. Galloway, Gulfport, for appellees.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County; Floyd J. Logan, Judge.

Before SMITH, P. J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### The BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF DADE COUNTY, Florida, Appellant, v. Margaret McQUISTON, Appellee.

No. 69-727.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 24, 1970.

Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, Miami, for appellant.

Joseph J. Gersten, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee was a non-instructional employee of the appellant. She was discharged for failure to comply with regulations regarding her employment. She contends she had a right to appeal to a committee, which hearing should have been conducted in a quasi-judicial fashion. She took an appeal; the committee recommended her dismissal, which recommendation was approved by The Board of Public In*169struction. She then took certiorari to the circuit court and prevailed upon the circuit court to quash the order of the Board and to order a rehearing. The Board then appealed the circuit judge’s ruling to this certiorari proceeding, and (2) that the court, contending (1) that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings resulting in the dismissal of the appellee were executive actions and not those of the Board or its employees in a quasi-judicial fashion.

We find that the circuit court erred in two respects: First, it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari. Adams v. Board of Public Instruction of Okaloosa County, Fla.App. 1969, 225 So.2d 423; Powell v. Board of Public Instruction of Levy County, Fla. App.1969, 229 So.2d 308.1 Further, even if the circuit court had jurisdiction it erred in construing the proceedings for dismissal of the employee as a quasi-judicial administrative action, when it is apparent that the action of the Board in discharging a non-instructional employee [not protected by classified service] was an executive action not reviewable by certiorari, cf. DeGroot v. Sheffield, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 912; Bloomfield v. Mayo, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 417; Modlin v. City of Miami Beach, Fla. 1967, 201 So.2d 70; § 230.23(5) (h), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final order of the circuit court, here under review, be and the same is hereby set aside and reversed with directions to dismiss the petition for certiorari filed in the trial court.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

1

. It is recognized that these decisions catne down after the circuit judge took jurisdiction of the matter, but causes are determined at the appellate level as the law exists at the time of the appeal and not at the time of the institution of the proceedings in the trial court. Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse, Fla.1966, 194 So.2d 260; Personnel Board of City of Miami Beach v. Majewski, Fla.App. 1969, 227 So.2d 498.
January 11, 2001

No. 00A605.

#### Allen *v.*Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board et al.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Breyer, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
#### Lillian TOMBERLIN and Charles W. Tomberlin, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Floyd CHASTAINE; Harold G. Jaffer, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Leonard Peter Opatkiewicz and Katherine Opatkiewicz, Appellees.

No. 69-28.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 15, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Ex parte Herman DAVIS.

SC 2694.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 19, 1977.

JONES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Patrick D Matthews, ChiefFinancial Officer, of Primary Business Systems, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1)          the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endingSeptember 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and

 

(2)          the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Date:  November 13, 2003 | By:    | /s/Patrick  D Matthews   |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | Patrick D Matthews       |
|                          |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                             Exhibit 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of VideoServer,Inc. of our report dated January 14, 1997, included in the 1996
Annual Report to Shareholders of VideoServer, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of VideoServer, Inc.
listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.
In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the  Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-96192) of VideoServer, Inc. of our report dated January 14,
1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein
by reference, and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect
to the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of VideoServer, Inc.



                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
March 25, 1997
#### Johnny WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-1017.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 29, 1969.

*407Richard Kanner, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Jesse J. Mc-Crary, Jr., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is defendant’s appeal from a conviction of robbery. His first point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a protective order which he made in response to the State’s demand for disclosure of alibi witnesses pursuant to Rule 1.200, Florida Rules of Criminal Pro-’ cedure, 33 F.S.A.

Appellant argues that'the notice of alibi rule is a rule of substantive law, and accordingly is not authorized by Article 5, Section 3, of the Florida Constitution,1 F.S.A.

Appellant’s next point is that Rule 1.200, supra, violates his privilege against self-incrimination as provided by the Florida Declaration of Rights, Section 12, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

We find no substantial merit in either of these two points on appeal.

Appellant’s third and last point raises the question of whether his constitutional rights were violated when the trial court denied his request for a trial by a jury of twelve instead .of six. The trial court ruled that the appellant was entitled, under Florida law, to a jury consisting of only six persons; the state contends that the trial court was correct in this ruling. We agree, and base our holding on the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 194, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491, 522 (1968).

Affirmed.

1

. Article 5, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution provides as follows: “The practice and procedure in all courts shall be governed by rules adopted by the supreme court.” Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 1.200 was adopted by the Florida Supreme Court, In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fla.1967, 196 So. 2d 124, 148.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24333]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Keweenaw National Historical Park Advisory Commission

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces an upcoming meeting of the Keweenaw 
National Historical Park Advisory Commission. Notice of this meeting is 
required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463).

DATES: Tuesday, October 28, 1997; 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Keweenaw National Historical Park Headquarters, 100 Red 
Jacket Road (2nd floor), Calumet, Michigan 49913-0471.
    This meeting is open to the public. We will begin with the 
Chairman's welcome; minutes of the previous meeting; update on the 
general management plan; update on park activities; old business; new 
business; next meeting date; adjournment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent, Keweenaw National 
Historical Park, P.O. Box 471, Calumet, Michigan 49913-0471, or 
telephone 906-337-3168.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Keweenaw National Historical Park was 
established by Public Law 102-543 on October 27, 1992.

    Dated: August 26, 1997.
William W. Schenk,
Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 97-24333 Filed 9-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
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
Annual Report of TC Global, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 3, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2011 (the Report), I, Scott M. Pearson, President
(principal executive officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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 operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/        SCOTT M.
PEARSON                                          
|Scott M. Pearson
President (principal executive officer)
July 5, 2011
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2



                           THE MED-DESIGN CORPORATION

                  CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
          RELATING TO A PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

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

         I, Lawrence D. Ellis, Chief Financial Officer of The Med-Design
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that, to my
knowledge:

         (1) The Company's periodic report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



                                      * * *




LAWRENCE D. ELLIS
-------------------------
Lawrence D. Ellis
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  March 30, 2005
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Irvin R. BOWEN.

No. 62305.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 9, 1978.

In re: Irvin R. Bowen applying for supervisory writs. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied; Adequate remedy by review in the event of conviction.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JERRY ANTHONY GREGOIRE, Jr., AKA 

Jerry Gregoire, AKA Jerry Anthony 

Gregoire, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50435 

D.C. No. 

2:13-cr-00288-RGK-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 13, 2018**

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, CLIFTON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-Appellant Jerry Anthony Gregoire, Jr., appeals the findings made 

by the district court on remand. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

and we affirm.

 

* 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

APR 17 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite 

them here. 

A prior panel of this court directed the district court on remand “to determine 

the extent of the pre-trial conflict between Gregoire and counsel.” Specifically, the 

panel instructed the district court to determine whether the conflict rose to the level 

of “an irreconcilable conflict . . . that would have resulted in a constructive denial of 

counsel or actual prejudice to Gregoire.”

We hold that the district court complied with these directives. First, the court 

held evidentiary hearings on June 13, June 30, and August 30, 2016, at which it

heard testimony and admitted evidence. The court also accepted written argument 

from both sides. This afforded the court a sufficient basis for reaching an informed 

decision. See, e.g., United States v. Velazquez, 855 F.3d 1021, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 

2017); United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 758, 763 (9th Cir. 2002).

Having conducted this inquiry, the court properly proceeded to the second 

step mandated by the prior panel and our circuit’s precedents. The court evaluated 

the testimony and evidence to determine “whether the conflict between [Gregoire] 

and his attorney was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication 

preventing an adequate defense.” United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th 

Cir. 2000). Rejecting much of Gregoire’s characterization of the representation as 

“not credible,” the district court determined that the “main dispute” between
3 

Gregoire and his counsel resulted from his counsel’s decision not to file a frivolous 

motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction. Because this dispute did 

not prevent Gregoire and his counsel from otherwise being “in frequent and 

meaningful communication . . . during the course of the representation,” the court 

determined that it did not rise to the magnitude of a conflict “that would have resulted 

in a constructive denial of counsel or actual prejudice” to Gregoire. The court 

reached this conclusion in compliance with this court’s directives and precedents.

AFFIRMED.
### Public and industrial water supplies of the Blue Grass region, Kentucky

By: Wilbur Nathaniel PalmquistFrancis Ramey Hall

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir299

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

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.