alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Betty Ann CHRISTIANSEN, Appellant, The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-650.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 10, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Mark King Leban, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sheridan Weinstein, Legal Intern, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant was indicted for murder in the first degree, tried by jury, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

On appeal, one of appellant’s contentions is that the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s objections to hypothetical questions posed to the state’s expert witnesses on the grounds that these questions did not reflect all the facts in evidence.

It is well settled that hypothetical questions need not be an exact reproduction of the evidence and counsel may pose hypothetical questions upon any reasonable theory as to the effect of the evidence. Should the jury find such evidence is not proved, the questions and answers must simply be disregarded. Zerega v. State, Fla.1972, 260 So.2d 1; Baker v. State, 30 Fla. 41, 11 So. 492 (1892); and Williams v. State, 45 Fla. 128, 34 So. 279 (1903). Further, we noted that appellant neither offered an amendment to the hypothetical questions tendered by the prosecution nor did she offer one of her own, but merely objected to them. Therefore, we hold that if there was error, it was harmless error.

Appellant additionally contends that the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s objections to the state’s cross-examination of the defendant on the existence vel non of a life insurance policy.

*42In support of this argument defense counsel relies primarily on the case of People v. Gougas, 410 Ill. 235, 102 N.E.2d 152 (1951), wherein the Illinois Supreme Court held that the victim’s life insurance policy, which named the accused as beneficiary, was improperly admitted into evidence in absence of a showing that the accused knew of the existence of the policy. This case, however, is clearly distinguishable from the case sub judice as the record on appeal reflects the testimony of the defendant to the effect that she knew of the existence of the insurance policy, believed it had lapsed, but thought the victim had reinstated it. Thus, we find no error.

We also considered appellant’s remaining point on appeal and found that to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit (j)

           CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
                                ACCOUNTING FIRM

We  consent  to  the  references  to  our  firm  under  the  caption  "Financial
Highlights"  in  the  Tax-Exempt  California  Money  Market  Fund  (the  "Fund")
Prospectus and "Independent  Registered  Public  Accounting Firm" and "Financial
Statements"  in the  Fund's  Statement  of  Additional  Information,  and to the
incorporation  by  reference  in  Post-Effective  Amendment  Number  25  to  the
Registration  Statement  (Form N-1A, No.  33-12938) of our report dated November
21, 2007, on the financial statements and financial highlights of the Tax-Exempt
California  Money  Market  Fund,  included  in the Fund's  Annual  Report  dated
September 30, 2007.


                                                     /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
January 24, 2008
#### Arthur James WILCOX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-969.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 19, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
* Eric H. Holder, Jr. is substitute d for his predecessor, Michael B. Mukasey, as Attorney General of the Un ited States, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARAM HOVHANNISYAN; MERI HOVHANNISYAN; HOVHANNES HOVHANNISYAN; MIHRAN HOVHANNISYAN, Petitioners,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, * Respondent. No. 06-74541 Agency Nos. A075-683-444 A075-683-445 A075-683-446 A075-683-447

MEMORANDUM **

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 9, 2011 *** Pasadena, California Before: RYMER, CALLAHAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. 

# FILED

MAR 11 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Because Hovhannisyan’s appeal to the BI A did not challenge the IJ’s denial of his continuance request, that claim is not exhausted and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). The BIA’s determination that the IJ did not evince judicial hostility or bias toward Hovhannisyan is supported by subs tantial evidence in the record, and therefore Hovhannisyan’s due process claim also fails. Antonio-Cruz v. INS , 147 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 1998). Finally, to the extent that Hovhannisyan’s petition can be construed as challenging th e IJ’s adverse credibility determination, that determination is supported by substan tial evidence in the record, including the inconsistency between Hovhannisyan’s desc ription of the seriousness of his stab wound and the medical treatment he received. INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992); Li v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004). DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.
#### Dorothy McCOY, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Appellee.

No. N-391.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 22, 1970.

Joanos & Parsons, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Hall, Hartwell, Michaels & Hall, Tallahassee, for appellee.

*177PER CURIAM.

The briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court appealed from is hereby affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.44



January 10, 1997


Mr. Raymond Benson
MRS Technology, Inc.
10 Elizabeth Drive
Chelmsford, MA 01824

Dear Ray:

You expressed concern at the time of your hire that your position as V.P. of
Sales may be eliminated if MRS was purchased by another company or if another
company made a substantial investment in MRS.  This letter confirms our
earlier verbal commitment to provide a severance package in such event.

Beginning at the closing date of any such merger or change of control, your
base salary will be continued at 90% of your salary on 1/10/97 until you find
other employment in a comparable position or at a comparable rate, up to 36
weeks from the date of such closing.  You will be paid biweekly (or in lump
sum, at the company's option).  Your group medical, group term life insurance,
and group dental plans will be continued for the same time, and under the same
conditions.

If at the time of closing an interim period of employment has been agreed
upon, the 36 week period will begin at the end of such interim period.

This agreement will remain in force so long as you are available to consult
with the surviving company on matters that related to your work at MRS, and so
long as you are not assisting any competitor of the surviving company.

Should MRS be the surviving company, your MRS options will fully vest at the
date of closing, and you will be granted a period of up to 4 years to exercise
these options.  If another company purchases MRS, the terms of such a purchase
will prevail.

Note, if within the surviving company a job is found that is acceptable to
you, your salary and option packages will be determined during such
negotiations and this agreement will be superseded.

These arrangements are, of course, contingent upon your continued employment
at MRS through such closing.

Your continued loyalty, support and business advice is much appreciated.

Sincerely yours,
/s/Griff Resor III, President
# L_2005053EN.01002301.xml

| 26.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 53/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/23

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 336/2005

of 25 February 2005

on the issue of import licences for certain preserved mushrooms imported under the autonomous tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 220/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 220/2005 of 10 February 2005 opening and providing for the administration of an autonomous tariff quota for preserved mushrooms (1), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| | |
| --- | --- |

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   Import licences applied for by traditional importers pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 220/2005 and submitted to the Commission on 22 February 2005 shall be issued for 7,853 % of the quantity applied for.

2.   Import licences applied for by new importers pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 220/2005 and submitted to the Commission on 22 February 2005 shall be issued for 9,615 % of the quantity applied for.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 February 2005.

It shall apply until 30 June 2005.

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

Done at Brussels, 25 February 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 39, 11.2.2005, p. 11.

1

---
# L_2005247EN.01000301.xml

| 23.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 247/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 247/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1535/2005

of 22 September 2005

amending Regulation (EC) No 1063/2005 as regards the quantity covered by the standing invitation to tender for the export of common wheat held by the Czech intervention agency

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereal (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1063/2005 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the export of 180 000 tonnes of common wheat held by the Czech intervention agency. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1063/2005 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the export of 180 000 tonnes of common wheat held by the Czech intervention agency.

| (2) | The Czech Republic has informed the Commission of its intervention agency’s intention to increase by 95 911 tonnes the quantity put out to tender for export. In view of the quantities available and the market situation, the request made by the Czech Republic should be granted. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Czech Republic has informed the Commission of its intervention agency’s intention to increase by 95 911 tonnes the quantity put out to tender for export. In view of the quantities available and the market situation, the request made by the Czech Republic should be granted.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 1063/2005 should therefore be amended. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1063/2005 should therefore be amended.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1063/2005 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 2

The invitation to tender shall cover a maximum of 275 911 tonnes of common wheat for export to third countries with the exception of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Liechtenstein, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro (*1) and Switzerland.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 22 September 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 36.

2

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1500** 

CHRISTOPHER CHIN

- YOUNG , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. GARY L. ROWELL, Department of the Army; LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General; U.S. ATTORNEY, of the United States; WILLIAM D. SPENCER; KATHLEEN D. COLE; DENISE S. PRICE; NICOLE DECRESCENZO , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Roger W. Titus , Senior District Judge. ( 8:13

- cv - 03772

- RWT )

Submitted : October 30, 2015 Decided: November 30, 2015

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Christopher Chin

- Young , Appellant Pro Se. Tarra DeShields Minnis , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Chin

- Young appeals the district court ’ s order s dismissing his civil action and denying his motions for reconsideration **.** ***** We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Chin

- Young v. Powell , No.
8:13

- cv - 03772

- RWT (D. Md. Apr. 2, 2015; May 7 , 2015; May 19,
2015 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

* We construe Chin

- Young’s informal brief as a timely notice of appeal from the orders denying his motions for reconsideration. See Smith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248

- 49 (1992) ; Hughes v. Halifax Cnty. Sch. Bd. , 823 F.2d 832, 83 4

- 3 5 (4th Cir. 1987)

.
NIHSeniorHealth: Transcript "What Do the Kidneys Do?"

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/gpo20735/NIHSeniorHealth%20Transcript%20What%20Do%20the%20Kidneys%20Do.htm[1/13/2014 10:01:47 AM]

Transcript: "What Do the Kidneys Do?"

Narrator: A doctor speaks with a patient in his office.

Patient: So what do the kidneys do?

Doctor: Well, you have two kidneys and they're each about the size of your fist and they're located on

each side of your spine. The kidneys are usually described simply as filters but they do a lot more

than that. Their job really is to maintain the composition of the blood at a constant level. They do

filter the blood and they remove waste products and water and they produce urine, which is waste

products and water.

But in addition to that, they have many other functions. They play a major role in controlling blood

pressure, they maintain a major role in preventing you from becoming anemic, and they also have a

very important role in maintaining the strength of your bones.
#### Fred GASSION and Rainey Wilborn v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50460.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 17, 1978.

R. M. P. Short, Sardis, for appellants.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Robert D. Findley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

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

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur.

COFER, J., took no part.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          Consent of Ernst & Young LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-34362) pertaining to 1,750,000 shares of common stock of Optical
Sensors Incorporated and, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-04373)
pertaining to the Optical Sensors Incorporated 1989 Omnibus Stock Option Plan
and the Optical Sensors Incorporated 1993 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-17493) pertaining to the Optical Sensors
Incorporated Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form
SB-2 No. 333-71076) pertaining to 15,583,333 shares of common stock of Optical
Sensors Incorporated, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-71354)
pertaining to the Optical Sensors Incorporated 1993 Stock Option Plan of our
report dated February 28, 2003, with respect to the financial statements of
Optical Sensors Incorporated included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB/A) for
the year ended December 31, 2002.

                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
June 25, 2003
II 

Calendar No. 361 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3851 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

90 McCamly Street South in Battle Creek, Michigan, as the ‘‘Sojourner 

Truth Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 29, 2024 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Ms. STABENOW) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

APRIL 11 (legislative day, APRIL 10), 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 90 McCamly Street South in Battle Creek, 

Michigan, as the ‘‘Sojourner Truth Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SOJOURNER TRUTH POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 90 McCamly Street South in 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3851 RS

1 Battle Creek, Michigan, shall be known and designated as 

2 the ‘‘Sojourner Truth Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sojourner Truth Post 

7 Office’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 361 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3851 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostTruth Post Office’’. in Battle Creek, Michigan, as the ‘‘Sojourner al Service located at 90 McCamly Street South 

APRIL 11 (legislative day, APRIL 10), 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# L_2005247EN.01000801.xml

| 23.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 247/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 247/8

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1538/2005

of 22 September 2005

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 6th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) and in particular the second indent of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 of 15 July 2005 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2005/2006 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 of 15 July 2005 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2005/2006 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 6th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 the maximum amount of the export refund shall be 42,400 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 September 2005.

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

Done at Brussels, 22 September 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 185, 16.7.2005, p. 3.

2

---
#### Helen JOHNSON a/k/a Sister Oka Johnson a/k/a Sister Oka, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44831.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 9, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1974.

Certiorari dismissed. 285 So.2d 53.
Access to Programs, Services, Information, and Technology 

Policy Statement 

The U.S. Department of Transportation will take appropriate steps to ensure equal access in 

compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which prohibits 

disability discrimination in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or is conducted 

by an executive agency. The Department will ensure that people with disabilities will enjoy 

equal opportunity and benefit from all its programs, services, activities, and facilities. 

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires all electronic and information technology 

purchased, developed, maintained, or used by the Department to meet accessibility standards for 

information that is shared with the American public and employees. 

Simply put, to achieve organizational excellence, the Department must maintain an accessible 

work environment. This is crucial to ensuring that all individuals with disabilities have equal 

employment opportunities. Supervisors and managers are responsible for effective leadership 

that demonstrates our commitment and accomplishes the goal of equal access. The Chief 

Information Officer, the Assistant Secretary for Administration, and the Director of our 

Departmental Office of Civil Rights are available to provide policy guidance and technical 

assistance on how to create and maintain an accessible work environment. 

Pete Buttigieg 

June 9, 2022