alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[104th Congress Public Law 40]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ40.104]

[[Page 109 STAT. 350]]

Public Law 104-40
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To authorize the collection of fees for expenses for triploid grass carp 
   certification inspections, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Nov. 1, 
                           1995 -  [S. 268]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1.  <<NOTE: 16 USC 2804 note.>> COLLECTION OF FEES FOR 
                              TRIPLOID GRASS CARP CERTIFICATION 
                              INSPECTIONS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service (referred to in this section 
as the ``Director''), may charge reasonable fees for expenses to the 
Federal Government for triploid grass carp certification inspections 
requested by a person who owns or operates an aquaculture facility.
    (b) Availability.--All fees collected under subsection (a) shall be 
available to the Director until expended, without further 
appropriations.
    (c) Use.--The Director shall use all fees collected under subsection 
(a) to carry out the activities referred to in subsection (a).

    Approved November 1, 1995.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 268:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104-189 (Comm. on Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 104-51 (Comm. on Environment and Public Works).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):
            Apr. 26, considered and passed Senate.
            Oct. 17, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
#### Emmanuel A. MIXON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. GG-11.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 20, 1977.

*622Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael H. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, convicted below of attempting to obtain a controlled substance by fraud, contends that the State failed in its proof against him. The record reveals that Appellant presented a prescription for the controlled drug Tuinal to a Jacksonville pharmacist that the pharmacist noticed irregularities in the prescription, and that while the pharmacist was studying the prescription, Appellant made a phone call and left the drugstore before the prescription had been filled. The pharmacist testified that because Tuinal was a classified narcotic, it could only be dispensed if signed by a doctor with a proper Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) number. The prescription in question included the alleged signature of a “Dr. A. Colbo” and contained a B.N.D.D. Number. However, neither party presented testimony confirming or denying the existence of such a doctor, and neither presented evidence of who the ENDD number had been assigned to. The medical records director of the hospital from which the prescription came testified that there was no record of Appellant being treated at the hospital on the day of the prescription, but could not state with certainty that there was not a Dr. Colbo on the hospital’s staff on that day. He also stated that there were non-staff doctors who wrote prescriptions at the hospital, but that they were supposed to leave their records with the hospital when they treated a patient there.

Appellant contends that because the State failed to prove that the signature on the prescription was a forgery, it did not make a prima facie case against him. We agree and reverse. In *Rollins v. State,*211 So.2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), the Court reversed a conviction of uttering a forged or false prescription where testimony established that there was a doctor with the name signed on the prescription licensed in the State although she was then a Connecticut resident. The Court noted there that since the physician was licensed, her signature should have been available from the Board of Medical Examiners and therefore proof of the authenticity or falsity of her signature should not have been difficult. Here it is clear that the State did not even prove that there was no doctor by the name of “A. Colbo” on the staff of the hospital, much less that there was no doctor by that name licensed in the State. The case is controlled by the general rule recently repeated by the Florida Supreme Court in *McArthur v. State,*351 So.2d 972 (Fla.1977):

> “Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”

Reversed and remanded with directions that appellant be discharged.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JAMIE GEER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-3403 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 16, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Frank Quesada, Judge. Jamie Geer, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Todd C. Chapman, Assistant Attorney General (withdrawn) and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, (withdrawn) Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KHOUZAM, C.J., and BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
Data Series 765
Coastal       Topography�Northeast Atlantic Coast, Post-Hurricane Sandy,       2012
Metadata
Each data file includes an FGDC-compliant             XML metadata file.             These files are easily viewed by using a Web browser such as             Microsoft Internet Explorer. In addition, links to the metadata             files can be found below.
General metadata information

DEM             metadata information

Dune metadata information

LAS metadata             information

Shoreline metadata information

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/765/pubs765/html/metadata.htmlPage Contact Information: GS Pubs Web ContactPage Last Modified: Wednesday, May 15, 2013, 01:12:01 PM
1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1494

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Joseph Dodd, also known as *

Shakespeare, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 3, 2008

Filed: December 8, 2008 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Dodd appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We affirm.

Dodd was convicted in May 2006, following a jury trial, of conspiring to

distribute cocaine base. This court affirmed the conviction. See United States v.

Dodd, 473 F.3d 873, 875-76 (8th Cir. 2007). With his new-trial motion, Dodd
-2-

submitted a letter and affidavit from his brother, Anthony Dodd (Anthony), in which

Anthony stated that he and Dodd look so much alike that people think they are twins,

although they are not. Anthony further stated that he was the one present during a

controlled drug buy, rather than Dodd, and that witnesses were mistaken when they

testified about events at the location of the controlled buy involving Dodd, as Anthony

was the one involved and Dodd was not present. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dodd’s motion. See

United States v. Duke, 255 F.3d 656, 659 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review;

requirements to justify new trial under Rule 33). First, the district court gave valid

reasons for finding the assertions in Anthony’s affidavit to be “highly suspect”: he

was serving a life sentence with nothing to lose, and his assertions could help his

brother. See United States v. Grey Bear, 116 F.3d 349, 350 (8th Cir. 1997) (it is

district court’s job to decide whether newly discovered evidence is credible). Second,

the affidavit is essentially impeachment evidence, see United States v. Dogskin, 265

F.3d 682, 687 (8th Cir. 2001) (impeachment testimony rarely justifies new trial based

on newly discovered evidence), and we agree with the district court that there was

evidence of Dodd’s guilt even without the challenged testimony that would make the

possibility of acquittal unlikely, see United States v. Womack, 191 F.3d 879, 886 (8th

Cir. 1999). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not err in declining to

conduct an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Baker, 479 F.3d 574, 579 (8th

Cir. 2007) (necessity of hearing lessened where trial judge had opportunity to observe

demeanor and weigh credibility of witnesses at trial); Dogskin, 265 F.3d at 687

(absent exceptional circumstances, new trial motion based on new evidence may be

decided on affidavits without hearing).

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1. | The                report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities and 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/                Scot T.                Wetzel                                                    Name:                Scot T. WetzelTitle:                President and Chief                Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
| **CAPITAL FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY** | Exhibit 32.2 |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------|

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the AnnualReport of Capital Financial Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley P. Wells, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to the best of my knowledge:

|   |   |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (1)    | the Report fully complies with  the requirements of Section 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 all material respects, the financial condition  and results of operations of the Company. |

 

| Date: March 22, 2010 | By /s/ Bradley P. Wells                                         |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 | Bradley P.  Wells                                               |
|                 | Chief  Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and President |
Case 1:04-cv-00242-MBC-SPB Document 33 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 6Case 1:04-cv-00242-MBC-SPB Document 33 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 6Case 1:04-cv-00242-MBC-SPB Document 33 Filed 06/26/06 Page 3 of 6Case 1:04-cv-00242-MBC-SPB Document 33 Filed 06/26/06 Page 4 of 6Case 1:04-cv-00242-MBC-SPB Document 33 Filed 06/26/06 Page 5 of 6Case 1:04-cv-00242-MBC-SPB Document 33 Filed 06/26/06 Page 6 of 6
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 27 

To prohibit the Department of Defense from requiring contractors to provide 

information relating to greenhouse gas emissions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2023 

Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mr. RISCH, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Ms. ERNST, Mr. 

MARSHALL, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. TILLIS, Ms. LUMMIS, Mrs. 

FISCHER, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. LEE, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, 

Mr. RUBIO, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Mr. CASSIDY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Department of Defense from requiring contractors to provide information relating to greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

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 ‘‘Focus on the Mission 

5 Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 27 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING DEFENSE CONTRAC2 TORS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION RELATING 

3 TO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. 

4 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

5 (1) GREENHOUSE GAS.—The term ‘‘greenhouse 

6 gas’’ means— 

7 (A) carbon dioxide; 

8 (B) methane; 

9 (C) nitrous oxide; 

10 (D) nitrogen trifluoride; 

11 (E) hydrofluorocarbons; 

12 (F) perfluorcarbons; or 

13 (G) sulfur hexafluoride. 

14 (2) GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY.—The term 

15 ‘‘greenhouse gas inventory’’ means a quantified list 

16 of an entity’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. 

17 (3) SCOPE 1 EMISSIONS.—The term ‘‘Scope 1 

18 emissions’’ means direct greenhouse gas emissions 

19 from sources that are owned or controlled by the re20 porting entity. 

21 (4) SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS.—The term ‘‘Scope 2 

22 emissions’’ means indirect greenhouse gas emissions 

23 associated with the generation of electricity, heating 

24 and cooling, or steam, when these are purchased or 

25 acquired for the reporting entity’s own consumption 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 27 IS

1 but occur at sources owned or controlled by another 

2 entity. 

3 (5) SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS.—The term ‘‘Scope 3 

4 emissions’’ means greenhouse gas emissions, other 

5 than those that are Scope 2 emissions, that are a 

6 consequence of the operations of the reporting entity 

7 but occur at sources other than those owned or con8 trolled by the entity. 

9 (b) PROHIBITION ON DISCLOSURE REQUIRE10 MENTS.—The Secretary of Defense may not require the 

11 recipient of a Federal contract to provide a greenhouse 

12 gas inventory or to provide any other report on greenhouse 

13 gas emissions, including Scope 1 emissions, Scope 2 emis14 sions, or Scope 3 emissions. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Roger Jay KLIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-753.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 26, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CARLOS MALDANADO TORRES, :

:

Plaintiff :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-15-1656

:

WARDEN DEROSE, ET AL., : (Judge Brann)

:

Defendants :

ORDER

November 4, 2015

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. 

3. Any appeal from this Order will be deemed frivolous,

without probable cause and not taken in good faith.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01656-MWB-JVW Document 11 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 1
Cleaire LongMile Filter Notice

This notice is primarily intended for fleet owners of the Cleaire LongMile® diesel particulate 

matter filter system used outside the state of California. Owners in California must follow the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) requirements as listed in CARB’s regulatory Advisory 

listed below. 

The LongMile, which contained a metal filter element, was initially verified by CARB for 

certain 1993-2006 model year on-highway engines. On September 20, 2012 Cleaire voluntarily 

suspended sales and installation of the Cleaire LongMile filter system. 

As a follow up, on December 7, 2012 Cleaire received verification from CARB for a new 

product the Longmile-STM which employs a ceramic silicon carbide filter element. The 

LongMile-S is verified for certain 1993-2010 model year on-highway engines.

Cleaire is voluntarily recalling all the LongMile filter systems at its own expense and free of 

charge to owners. During this recall, Cleaire is offering to replace the LongMile metal filter 

element with the newly verified LongMile-S ceramic filter element. In addition, the product 

warranty period will be set to start new at the time of installation. The LongMile-S system has a 

slightly different exhaust temperature criteria; therefore, certain installations may not be 

applicable for the LongMile-S system. In this situation, Cleaire will make available several 

options to the fleet owner. 

Cleaire is in the process of contacting all owners. For further information or questions please 

contact your Cleaire Authorized Dealer or Cleaire directly: Steve Rohrer at (510) 433-8861 or 

email: steve.rohrer@cleaire.com. 

EPA will provide additional information on the recall as updates become available. 

For more information about CARB's Regulatory Advisory, please see: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/msc1220/msc1220.pdf

 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

EPA-420-B-12-067a

December 2012
#### William L. VAUGHAN, Appellant, v. Harriet VAUGHAN, Appellee.

No. 2280.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

April 29, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 23.2**

Consent of KPMG LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

TranSwitch Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (Nos. 333-114238, 333-69005, 333-105332, 333-109102, 333-109571 and 333-131772) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-75800, 333-70344, 333-44032, 333-83187, 33-94234, 333-89798, 333-126129 and 333-131773) on Form S-8 of TranSwitchCorporation and subsidiaries of our report dated March 11, 2005, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2004, and therelated financial statement schedule as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004, which report appears in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of TranSwitch Corporation and subsidiaries. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Stamford, Connecticut 

March 5, 2007
#### Clifford Talmadge SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-311.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 14, 1970.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, Gerald Sohn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate judgment and sentence imposed upon his conviction in a jury trial on a charge of possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Appellant’s conviction was affirmed by this court on direct appeal. Smith v. State, Fla.App., 223 So.2d 386.

Record on appeal and briefs of counsel have been considered by the court. No reversible error has been made to appear. Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18
(Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person for any other purpose.



The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of CCF Holding Company (the small business issuer), hereby certifies as follows:



The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the small business issuer
(the Report), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the small business issuer.



Dated this 29th day of March, 2004.



/s/ David B. TurnerDavid B. Turner, Chief Executive Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the small business issuer and will be retained by the small business issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-139671 and 333-165475 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 18, 2010, relating to the financial statements andfinancial statements schedules of EnergyConnect Group, Inc., which include an explanatory paragraph relating to substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofEnergyConnect Group, Inc. for the year ended January 1, 2011. 

/s/ RBSM LLP 

New York, New York 

April 1, 2011