alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Eric P. DURCAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1144.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 4, 1977.

Michael A. Pelle, North Miami Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Jose R. Rodriguez, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and HAVER-FIELD and HUBBART, JJ.

HAVERFIELD, Judge.

Eric Durcan appeals his convictions for three counts of burglary, one count of larce*526ny and one count of breaking and entering; and contends that the trial judge abused his discretion by denying his motions for continuance so that he could bring in testimony to impeach that of the prosecution’s chief witness. We find the continuance was properly denied.

The general rule is that the granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial court and the court’s action on such a motion will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing that there has been a palpable abuse of that discretion to the disadvantage of the accused, or whereby his rights may have been jeopardized. *Mills v. State,*280 So.2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); *Douglas v. State,*216 So.2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) and cases cited therein. We conclude defendant has failed to show an abuse of discretion or that any of his rights were jeopardized.

First, we note that the motions failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(g) in that the motions were not in writing and contained no certificate of counsel. Cf. *Lyles v. State,*312 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

Second, the proposed testimony which would be later produced merely was cumulative and would only tend to impeach the prosecution witness. See *Machin v. State,*213 So.2d 499 (Fla.3d DCA 1968).

As defendant made no written motion or timely demand therefor, we have also determined that there is no merit in his second argument that he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial. See *Barker v. Wingo,*407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972).

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 58747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28728]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--CommerceNet Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 6, 1997, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), CommerceNet Consortium, 
(``CommerceNet'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
certain changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Specifically, the following organizations have joined CommerceNet 
as Sponsor Members: MicroSystems Software, Inc., Framingham, MA; 
NeoMedia Technologies, Inc., Fort Meyers, FL; SOFTBANK Net Solutions, 
Buffalo, NY; Release Software Corporation, Melno Park, CA. The 
following organization has upgraded to an executive member: INTERSHOP 
Communications, Inc. The following organizations changed their names: 
News Datacom to NDS America; and DBM Group to Strategic Response.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activities of CommerceNet. Membership remains open and CommerceNet 
intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On June 13, 1994, CommerceNet filed its original notification 
pursuant to Sec. 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Sec. 6(b) of the Act on 
August 31, 1994 (59 FR 45012). The last notification was filed with the 
Department on May 15, 1997, and a notice was published in the Federal 
Register on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32370).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-28728 Filed 10-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
See http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/programs/investment-programs/cpp/Pages/capitalpurchaseprogram.aspx

U.S. Department of the Treasury 

Office of Financial Stability – Capital Purchase Program

Bid Timeline

Key Dates

June 20, 2012: U.S. Department of the Treasury (“UST”) informed institutions of their ability to bid on their Capital 

Purchase Program (“CPP”) security and notified them of their selection for a pooled auction process

should the bid not be accepted

August 6, 2012: Bids on the CPP investment or an extension request are due to the UST by 5:00pm EST. All bids 

must be submitted using a completed Form of Bid Letter (the “Bid Letter”) available on the UST 

website1

August 17, 2012: UST will provide a formal response to the received bids made by CPP institutions and/or qualified 

bidders by August 17, 2012. Those institutions not selected for the pool will receive further 

information regarding nature and timing of potential repurchase

October 9, 2012: Bids on the CPP investment are due to the UST by 5:00pm EST for those institutions who submitted 

an extension request. All bids must be submitted using a completed Form of Bid Letter (the “Bid 

Letter”) available on the UST website1

October 26, 2012: For institutions who had previously submitted bids to Treasury by the October 9, 2012 deadline, but 

failed to successfully opt-out of the pooled auction process, any additional bids on the CPP 

investment are due to the UST by 5:00pm EST.

June 2012 July 2012

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31

August 2012 September 2012

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 1

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

October 2012

S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 16



                          LETTER OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


June 7, 2002

Office of the Chief Accountant
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


Dear Sir/Madam:

We have read paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Item 4 included in the Form 8-K dated May
31, 2002 of Computer Motion, Inc. to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and are in agreement with the statements contained therein.


Very truly yours,


/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
-----------------------
Arthur Andersen, LLP


Arthur Andersen LLP
Los Angeles, California
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 24

- 00402

- CR

DWIGHT REEGIS STEVENSON

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 23rd District Court of Matagorda County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 24

- 023

- 108

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
October 3, 2024
#### Curtis H. HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2365.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 13, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1978.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Jerry L. Schwarz, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See *Henry v. State,*350 So.2d 512 (4th DCA, Opinion filed September 27, 1977).

ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.

CROSS, J., dissents, without opinion.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 4, 2011 

Order 

 

February 4, 2011 

140685(57) 

CAROL DRAKE and CLELLEN BURY, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 SC: 140685 

v COA: 287502 

Berrien CC: 2008-000247-CE 

CITY OF BENTON HARBOR and HARBOR 

SHORES COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT 

CORPORATION, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by the Attorney General for leave to file 

a brief amicus curiae is granted.
##### 



EXHIBIT 6
 CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a), PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Cinram International 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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The issuer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 issuer 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 issuer, 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 issuer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 issuers internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the
audit committee of the issuer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 issuer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 issuers internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Lewis RitchieName:
    
    Lewis RitchieTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joe A. CATANESE.

No. 60749.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 7, 1977.

In re: Joe A. Catanese, applying for writ of review.

Writ granted. Evidentiary hearing ordered.

SUMMERS, J.,

dissents from the granting of this hearing. The motion upon which the ruling is based is devoid of any factual allegations which warrants the granting of this hearing. The ruling of the trial judge is correct.
[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. (Historical purposes)

**Title:** Fatigue crack growth behavior of railroad tankcar steel TC-128B subjected to various environments [electronic resource] 

 
SuDoc:TD 3.15:06/04/
Item Number:0701-C (online)
CGP system Number: 000866703
 
Volume1 | Volume2 | Volume3
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134435 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134435 COA: 275062 Kent CC: 01-003890-FC JAMIE RENE RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 30, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

t1022 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
#### Alex THIBO et ux. v. AETNA INSURANCE CO. et al.

No. 60326.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 7, 1977.

In re: Alex Thibo and Katherine Thibo, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 347 So.2d 20.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal majority opinion, the result is correct.
No. 9668.

#### Frazier *v.*The Board of County Commissioners.

(Decided November 13, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Shelby County.

*Mr. J. D. Barnes,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. H.. W. Robinson*and *Mr. John F. Wilson,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Sriauck, C. J., Crew, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6511

JOHNNIE LEE BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versusSTATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-98-951-2-23) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnnie Lee Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Johnnie Lee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Brown v. South Carolina , No. CA-98-951- 2-23 (D.S.C. Mar. 18, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Edward ROMERO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1086.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 9, 1971.

Norman F. Haft, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Rodney Durrance, Jr., and James M. Adams, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Edward Romero from a judgment and sentence of the Court of Record for Brevard County, Florida, rendered 17 December 1970. We affirm.

The first point on appeal as stated by the appellant is as follows:

> “Whether the sentence and judgment of the court is void because the court tried the minor defendant without notifying his parents pursuant to F.S. 932.38 [F. S.A.].”

The record before this court is totally insufficient to permit a review by this court of the asserted noncompliance with F.S. 1969, section 932.38, F.S.A. (now F.S.1970, section 925.07, F.S.A.). For example, the record before us fails to reveal the appellant’s age or marital status at the time of trial or whether his parent or parents had actual notice of the charge a reasonable time prior to the trial. Because the merits of the issue raised under Point I must rest on factual matters outside the record, our affirmance of the judgment and sentence appealed from shall be without prejudice to the right of the appellant to raise the issue by a motion under Rule 1.850, CrPR, 33 F.S.A.

The second point on appeal as stated in the appellant’s brief is:

> “Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt and establish a prima facie case or should a judgment of acquittal have been granted.”

This point relates to the sufficiency of the evidence. The point has not been properly preserved for appellate review because a timely motion for new trial was not made. *138See Rule 1.590(a), CrPR. Accordingly, with respect to Point II we are required by the presumption of correctness which favors proceedings in the trial court to hold that Point II lacks merit. See State v. Owens, Fla.1970, 233 So.2d 389; State v. Wright, Fla.1969, 224 So.2d 300; and, State v. Contreras, Fla.1969, 227 So.2d 306.

For the foregoing reasons and subject to the foregoing limitation, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.

REED, C. J., and CROSS and OWEN, JJ-, concur.
**C.1 	Notice of Intent**

*Letter to be written by the Applicant’s Regional or State Office*

Date

Division Director

Federal Highway Administration

[Division name]

[Address]

[City, State, Zip]

This letter is our formal Notice of Intent to apply for emergency relief funds to assist with the needed repairs and reconstruction under provisions of 23 U.S.C. 125. On [date], we conveyed by telephone to [name] our informal Notice of Intent to seek emergency relief funds. 

We request a finding on the eligibility of damage to roads and trails that occurred on the [Forest, District, Park, Reservation] in the Counties of [name] in the state of [name].

The damage occurred on [specific date(s)].

Damage included failure over a wide area of:

	[*number*]	bridges

	[*number*]	bridge approaches

	[*number*]	roads

The damage was caused by [*describe the nature and intensity of the disaster event or catastrophic failure*].

The preliminary cost estimate to restore eligible facilities to their pre-event condition is:

[*list or state dollar amounts*]

Counties covered by a presidential disaster declaration include [*list*].

Counties covered by a Governor’s Proclamation of Emergency include [*list*].

Please ensure that responses to this letter are copied to [name, title, address].

If you have any questions, please contact [name, title] at [telephone number].

		Sincerely,

		Signature			

	[Name]

		[Title]

cc: FLHD ERFO Coordinator
# Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida

Opinion filed July 17, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D24

- 0927 Lower Tribunal No. F94

- 3193

________________


### Jose Lopez , Appellant,

vs.


### The State of Florida , Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Michelle Delancy , Judge.
Jose Lopez , in proper person.
Ashley Moody , Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, GORDO and LOBREE , JJ.

PER CURIAM.2 Affirmed. See Johnson v . State , 60 So. 3d 1045, 1050 (Fla. 2011)
(“ Under rule 3.800(a), ‘ the burden [is on] the petitioner to demonstrate an

entitlement to relief on the face of the record .’ The State accordingly has no
burden to establish that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. ”) (quoting

Williams v. State , 957 So. 2d 600, 602 (Fla. 2007) ) ; se e also Lopez v. State
, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) ( “[A] defendant [may not] claim a
sentence is illegal based on an alleged discrepancy between an oral
pronouncement and a written sentence ... without a transcript of the
sentencing hearing or other indisputable evidence of record to support the

claim.” ) (quoting Nielson v. State , 984 So. 2d 587, 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) )

.
United States Steel Corporation – Minntac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request

April 24, 2012

Item 5

Provide copies of all stack tests conducted on any emissions unit for any reason, and

include all test runs, even if a full test series was not completed. Identify the

emissions unit; specify the date of the test, test method used, and the filter

temperature during the time of the test, if applicable. Provide all calculations relative

to the stack test, and provide copies of the full test report, including the section

describing the process parameters and production or processing rates at the time of

the test as well as copies of any reports of visible emission observations conducted

during each test. For each test during which the source was not operating at

maximum design capacity, provide an explanation why production was limited.

Person(s): that provided information used or considered in responding to the question or 

were consulted in the preparation of the response: Teresa Simetkosky, Stephani Campbell, 

Chrissy Bartovich

Answer:

As per the conference call between USEPA and U. S. Steel on 4/12/12, stack test reports are 

provided for SO2 and NOx testing for the last 7 years. For Minntac, 3 test reports were found 

for that timeframe. Stack testing was limited on indurating stacks for these pollutants because 

CEMS units are installed. In addition, PM results have been provided in tabular format detailing 

data from all stacks tested in the last 7 years. If after reviewing the table of results, EPA would 

like copies of any of the reports they will be provided.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/25

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL