alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Willie Thomas POWELL and James Thomas Wright, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-388.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 14, 1969.

Robert W. Rawlins, Public Defender, and John M. Gilbert, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

The two appellants, Powell and Wright, were jointly charged by information with the crime of robbery. Later after trial upon a plea of not guilty, they were convicted by a jury and adjudged guilty and sentenced by the Court. They have jointly appealed here. The sole assignment of error and the only ground argued in this Court is “that the trial Court committed prejudicial error by violating the defendants’ constitutional right to counsel in that the Court appointed the Public Defender to represent the indigent co-defendants at their joint trial”.

Defendants rely here upon the Supreme Court case of Baker v. State, Fla.1967, 202 So.2d 563, and the 4th District Court case of Youngblood v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 665. Those cases were thereafter expressly superseded by the Supreme Court in State v. Youngblood, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 98. And this Court in Garner v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 460, stated that—

> “ * * * under the recent decision of the Supreme Court in State v. Youngblood, 217 So.2d 98, opinion filed December 17, 1968, the law was finally settled in this State that representation *465by a single attorney of indigent co-defendants is legally permissible (a) if no request for separate counsel is made and the record reveals no prejudice to have resulted from failure to appoint a separate lawyer for each defendant, or (b) where a joint defendant does request separate counsel, but the State clearly demonstrates that prejudice would not result from a denial.”

The record here does not show that any request for separate counsel was made at any time in the lower Court, nor that prejudice to either defendant resulted from failure to appoint separate lawyers for them. In fact, the record fails to show that any motion for new trial was filed after conviction.

Reversible error not having been made to appear, the order appealed from is therefore—

Affirmed.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 09-1029 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CYPRUS 

Signed at Nicosia February 5, 2009 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 CYPRUS 

 Scientific Cooperation 

 Agreement signed at Nicosia February 5, 2009; 

 Entered into force October 29, 2009. 

 With annexes.
House Calendar No. 1

105TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 105–1

IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH--

pages 601 to 700
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3587 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3587

 To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to immediately initiate 
 removal proceedings for aliens whose visas are revoked on security or 
                            related grounds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 11, 2024

    Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mr. Vance, and Mr. Lee) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to immediately initiate 
 removal proceedings for aliens whose visas are revoked on security or 
                            related grounds.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Mandatory Removal Proceedings Act''.

SEC. 2. MANDATORY INITIATION OF REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS FOR ALIENS WHOSE 
              VISAS ARE REVOKED ON SECURITY OR RELATED GROUNDS.

    Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1201(i)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``After the issuance'' and inserting the 
        following: ``Visa Revocation.--
            ``(1) In general.--After'';
            (2) by striking ``his discretion'' and inserting ``in the 
        discretion of the Secretary'';
            (3) by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting 
        ``Secretary of Homeland Security'';
            (4) by striking ``issuance: Provided, That carriers'' and 
        inserting the following: ``issuance.
            ``(2) Exception.--Carriers''; and
            (5) by striking ``There shall be no means'' and inserting 
        the following:
            ``(3) Mandatory removal proceedings.--If the visa of an 
        alien is revoked pursuant to paragraph (1) as a result of a 
        ground for removal described in section 237(a)(4), the 
        Secretary of Homeland Security shall immediately initiate 
        removal proceedings for such alien.
            ``(4) Judicial review.--There shall be no means''.
                                 <all>
```
From: "Swift, Stephen G." <SSwift@rrienergy.com>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Smith, James R. (Randy)" <JRSmith@rrienergy.com>, "Frank, Stephen" <SFrank@rrienergy.com>, "Whelan, Kerry M." <KWhelan@rrienergy.com>, "Ott, Robert N." <RNOtt@rrienergy.com>

Date: 07/08/2010 04:24 PM

Subject: RRI Coolwater Generating Station - ICR Extension Request

Please see the attachment for our extension request for the ICR we recently received. (See attached file: RRI Coolwater Extension Req.pdf)
# L_2005069EN.01007201.xml

| 16.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 69/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 69/72

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 398/2005 of 10 March 2005 determining the world market price for unginned cotton

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 65 of 11 March 2005
  )

On page 3, in Article 1, ‘The world price for unginned cotton’:

for:

‘19,209 EUR/100 kg’,

read:

‘19,192 EUR/100 kg’.

---
---

Exhibit 13.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Rouge Resources Ltd. on Amendment No. 2 to Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), 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 to her 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.

Date: March
  15, 2011

ROUGE RESOURCES LTD.

/s/ Linda Smith
---------------------------------------Linda Smith, President and
Chief Executive Officer.

---
#### SHULT HOMES CORPORATION, a corporation a/k/a Shult Mobile Home Corporation, Appellant, v. Donald MAURICE d/b/a Starlight Mobile Homes Estates a/k/a Starlight Mobile Home Sales and Mary Ann Maurice, and the First National Bank of Kissimmee, Appellees.

No. 76-2062.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 26, 1977.

Martha A. Snedaker of Friedman & Brit-ton, Orlando, for appellant.

Donald Walker, Orlando, and Ellis F. Davis, Kissimmee, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Judge.

Appellant having recovered a judgment for $2780.00 garnished the judgment debt- or’s bank account in the appellee bank. Ap-pellee duly answered that it held $28.77 for the account of the judgment debtors. Ap-pellee filed a petition for allowance of attorney’s fees for garnishee and appellant moved for judgment on the pleadings. Appellant filed two affidavits as to reasonable fees for garnishee’s counsel of $25.00 and $35.00 respectively. Appellee filed two affidavits of $75.00 and $90.00 respectively. The trial court awarded garnishee a fee of $60.00.

Appellant’s sole point on appeal is that the attorney’s fee awarded is excessive! We have successfully resisted the temptation to quash this appeal as frivolous, and decided to treat it on the merits.

The fee awarded is $25.00 more than the amount mentioned in one of appellant’s own affidavits, and it is well within the proof which appellee adduced.

AFFIRMED.

CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur.
#### Elmer G. YOUNGBLOOD et al., Petitioners, v. CITRUS ASSOCIATES OF the NEW YORK COTTON EXCHANGE, INC., Respondent.

No. 43930.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 29, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 276 So.2d 505.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN and BOYD, JJ., dissent.
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

No. Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Accessed Applicant County

Fiscal 

Year*

TN-09 Dennis Cove Bridge 

Replacement Bridge Replacement U.S. Forest Service - Cherokee National Forest Carter County Carter 2016

TN-10 Naval Facility Connector Roadway 

Resurfacing

Department of Defense - 

Naval Support Activity Mid 

South

City of 

Millington Shelby 2016

TN-11 Twin Creeks Marina Road Roadway 

Resurfacing Tennessee Valley Authority City of Winchester Franklin 2017

TN-13 Lafayette Road Widening Roadway 

Reconstruction

Department of Defense - 

Fort Campbell

Clarksville 

Urbanized Area 

MPO

Montgomery 2017

TN-15 Bobcat Den Road Roadway 

Reconstruction

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - 

Tennessee National 

Wildlife Refuge

Henry County 

Highway 

Department

Henry 2016

TN-16 Moccasin Bend Connector Bicycle & Pedestrian 

Facilities

National Park Service - 

Chickmauga & 

Chattanooga National 

Military Park

Chattanooga 

Department of 

Transportation

Hamilton 2016

The Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for the Tennessee Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) has selected its multiyear 

Program of Projects. The projects identified for programming for the Tennessee FLAP are listed below in no particular order and include:

Tennessee Program of Projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2015-2018

* Fiscal Year Programmed/Project Schedule is subject to change
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

No. Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Accessed Applicant County Fiscal Year*

TN-17 Sugarloaf Drive Roadway 

Reconstruction

U.S. Forest Service - 

Cherokee National Forest

Polk County 

Highway 

Department

Polk 2016

TN-18 Ladd Springs Road Roadway 

Reconstruction

U.S. Forest Service - 

Cherokee National Forest

Polk County 

Highway 

Department

Polk 2016

TN-19 Big Cypress Road Roadway 

Reconstruction

National Park Service - 

Natchez Trace Parkway

Wayne County 

Highway 

Department

Wayne 2018

TN-20 Weatherford Creek Road Roadway 

Reconstruction

National Park Service - 

Natchez Trace Parkway

Wayne County 

Highway 

Department

Wayne 2017

TN-21 Wright Ridge Road Roadway 

Reconstruction

National Park Service - 

Natchez Trace Parkway

Wayne County 

Highway 

Department

Wayne 2016

* Fiscal Year Programmed/Project Schedule is subject to change

Tennessee Program of Projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2015-2018

The next step in the process will be to develop project agreements between Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division and the State/Local Agency 

partners. The amount of funds allocated will depend on finalizing these project agreements. The Missouri PDC does not have a firm date for the 

next Call for Projects under the Access Program, but another call is anticipated within the next year. 

If you have any questions regarding the Call for Projects, please contact Mr. Lewis Grimm, Planning Team Leader, at 703-404-6289 or 

Lewis.Grimm@dot.gov. For questions regarding project agreements and funding, please contact Ms. Jacinda Russell, Access Program Manager, at 

571-434-1543 or Jacinda.Russell@dot.gov.
1 The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-1796

___________ Terrick Terrell Nooner, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Larry Norris, Director, * Arkansas Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 7, 2003 Filed: August 12, 2003

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Terrick Terrell Nooner appeals the district court’s 1 order summarily dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Upon careful review of the record, we affirm.-2- Although Mr. Nooner labeled his petition as one brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, we view it as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, because he is a state prisoner. See Crouch v. Norris , 251 F.3d 720, 723 (8th Cir. 2001). Thus, to proceed with this appeal, Mr. Nooner requires a certificate of appealability, which we grant. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. As to the merits, we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons explained by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny all pending motions. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-1113 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and FRANCE 

Signed at Paris October 22, 2008 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
FRANCE 

Scientific Cooperation 

 Agreement signed at Paris October 22, 2008; 

 Entered into force November 13, 2010. 

 With annexes. 

 







NOTE: It is noted that the page numbering for the Annex section begins with "2".
# L_2005098EN.01001901.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 98/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 98/19

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 592/2005

of 15 April 2005

suspending the buying-in of butter in certain Member States

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 of 16 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in butter and cream (2), and in particular Article 2 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 lays down that buying-in is to be opened or suspended by the Commission in a Member State, as appropriate, once it is observed that, for two weeks in succession, the market price in that Member State is below or equal to or above 92 % of the intervention price. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 lays down that buying-in is to be opened or suspended by the Commission in a Member State, as appropriate, once it is observed that, for two weeks in succession, the market price in that Member State is below or equal to or above 92 % of the intervention price.

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 544/2005 (3) establishes the most recent list of Member States in which intervention is suspended. This list must be adjusted as a result of the market prices communicated by Sweden pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999. In the interests of clarity, the list in question should be replaced and Regulation (EC) No 544/2005 should be repealed, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 544/2005 (3) establishes the most recent list of Member States in which intervention is suspended. This list must be adjusted as a result of the market prices communicated by Sweden pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999. In the interests of clarity, the list in question should be replaced and Regulation (EC) No 544/2005 should be repealed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Buying-in of butter as provided for in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 is hereby suspended in Belgium, Denmark, Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia and Finland.

Article 2

Regulation (EC) No 544/2005 is hereby repealed.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 April 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 April 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 333, 24.12.1999, p. 11. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2250/2004 (OJ L 381, 28.12.2004, p. 25).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 91, 9.4.2005, p. 3.

3

---
#### Joey JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-1414.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 19, 1978.

Joey Jones, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before HENDRY, BARKDULL and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g), having taken this appeal from the summary denial of his motion for post conviction relief under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 and this court having considered the record presented and having further determined that it conclusively appears therefrom that petitioner is entitled to no relief, the denial of his motion is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM REGISTRANT'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE ACCOMPANYING
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       5,527,839
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  988,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                   150,725
<INVENTORY>                                    570,367
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,323,802
<PP&E>                                      74,639,827
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,868,111
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,828,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,979,893
<BONDS>                                     32,907,530
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        95,363
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,598,301
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,828,087
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            59,114,766
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,866,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,308,991
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               244,730
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,253,067
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,722,078
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,011,930
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,710,148
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                184,524
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,525,624
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37


</TABLE>