alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
256 La. 838

#### CITY OF MONROE v. J. D. WILHITE.

No. 50040.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 30, 1970.

*536J. Carl Parkerson, Monroe, for appellant.

Charles L. Hamaker, Asst. City Atty., for appellee.

SANDERS, Justice.

The City of Monroe charged the defendant in separate affidavits with driving an automobile under the influence of alcohol in violation of Section 24-6 of the City Ordinances and driving in excess of the speed limit in violation of Section 24 — 8 of the City Ordinances. By agreement between the City Attorney and defense counsel, the cases were consolidated for trial. Defendant moved for a jury trial, relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968). The City Judge overruled the motion. After trial, the City Judge foun'l the defendant guilty of both charges. He sentenced him to pay a fine of $425.00 and costs on the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol and a fine of $15.00 and costs on the charge of speeding.

Defendant appealed, relying upon the Bill of Exceptions reserved to the denial of a jury trial.

Under the City Ordinances each of the two charges has a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and a $500.00 fine. Defendant contends that since the aggregate sentence was one year imprisonment and a $1000.00 fine, he is entitled to a jury trial.

In Duncan v. Louisiana, supra, the United States Supreme Court held the Fourteenth Amendment required a jury trial for all “serious crimes” in state courts. From its holding, the court excluded petty offenses, those punishable by no more than six months imprisonment and a $500.00 fine. See State v. Orr, 253 La. 752, 219 So.2d 775.

After the Duncan decision, the Louisiana Legislature amended1 Article 779 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure to read as follows:

> “A defendant charged with a misdemeanor in which the punishment *may*be a fine in excess of five hundred dollars or imprisonment for more than six months shall be tried by a jury of five jurors, all of whom must concur to render a verdict; provided, however that a defendant charged with such an offense may waive a trial by jury and elect to be tried by the court.” (Italics ours.)

No justification can be found in the constitutional and statutory authority for aggregating the penalties authorized for two or more separate offenses to determine the right to a jury trial. The right to a jury trial is tested by the punishment authorized for the particular offense. The consolidation of the cases for trial does not alter this rule. Consolidation is a procedural device to conserve trial time. See LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 706.

In the present case, neither of the two offenses carried a greater punishment than a fine of $500.00 or six months imprisonment. Hence, under Article 779 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, a jury trial is unauthorized.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

1

. Act No. 635 of 1968.
# Person Counts by Status

# Person Counts by Age
Treasury approves Arizona’s plan to invest $99.4 million of CPF funding in 

broadband infrastructure projects that will provide high-quality internet to 

locations that lack access to adequate service.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Arizona

 

▪ Program Summary: $99.4 million for Broadband Infrastructure (52% of CPF allocation)

▪ Locations to Be Served (estimated): 127,807 (households, anchor institutions, & businesses)

▪ Program Description: Arizona will implement two

broadband infrastructure programs that aim to provide

reliable internet access to areas of the state lacking

adequate service. The Arizona Broadband Development

Rural Infrastructure Grant program (ABDG-Rural) is a

competitive grant program designed to expand high-speed

broadband in the state’s thirteen rural counties. The Arizona

Broadband Development Urban Infrastructure Grant program (ABDG-Urban) is a competitive 

grant program designed to improve and expand broadband infrastructure in the state’s two 

urban counties.

‒ The program is designed to provide internet service with 

speeds of 100/100 Mbps symmetrical to households and businesses upon project 

completion.

‒ Each of the internet service providers funded by the program will participate in the FCC’s 

Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) – a $30 per month subsidy for low-income families. 

▪ Key State Contact: The Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA)

Arizona Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

As reported by Arizona, 

estimates show that 

investments made using the 

Capital Projects Fund will 

serve ~11% of locations 

still lacking high-speed 

internet access in the state.

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information
### -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 38 40 42 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲


## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/30 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■


## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● 

## ★ ● ● ● ●
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RYAN ANDREW MEHL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 316 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of October, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
| 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:   January 7, 2013 |   | By: /s/ Craig S. McMillan    |
|----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|                                   |   | Craig S. McMillan            |
|                                   |   | Chief Executive Officer      |
|                                   |   | Principal Executive Officer  |
|                                   |   | Director                     |
|                                   |   |                         |
|                                   |   |                         |
|                                   |   |                         |
| Date:   January 7, 2013 |   | By: /s/ Steve W. Roussin     |
|                                   |   | Steve W. Roussin             |
|                                   |   | Chief Financial Officer      |
|                                   |   | Principal Financial Officer  |
|                                   |   | Principal Accounting Officer |
|                                   |   | President                    |
|                                   |   | Director                     |

----
#### CITY OF WEST MIAMI, Florida, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph P. ISERN, Econo-Way Exterminating Company, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Richard E. Gerstein, State Attorney, Appellees. CITY OF WEST MIAMI, Florida, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. CHAS. T. PIERCE & SONS, INC., a Florida corporation, and Richard E. Gerstein, State Attorney, Appellees.

Nos. 69-497, 69-500.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 29, 1971.

Allen Clements, Jr., Miami Beach, for appellant.

Norman F. Solomon and Jeffrey M. Cohen, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on January 6, 1970 (Fla.App., 229 So.2d 612) reversing the judgments of the Circuit Court for Dade County, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed February 17, 1971, Fla., 244 So.2d 420 and mandate dated March 5, 1971, now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause with instructions to reinstate the judgments of the circuit court;

Now, Therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on January 22, 1970 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed January 6, 1970 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and the judgments of the circuit court appealed from in this cause are reinstated and affirmed. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16(b) Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3109]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33344]


Grand Rapids Eastern Railroad, Inc.; Lease and Operation 
Exemption; Coopersville and Marne Railway Company Line

    Grand Rapids Eastern Railroad, Inc. (GRE), a Class III rail 
carrier, has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to lease 
and operate approximately 6.94 miles of rail line owned and operated by 
Coopersville and Marne Railway Company Line (C&M),<SUP>1 a Class III 
rail carrier, between milepost 159.5 at Grand Rapids (Walker) and 
milepost 166.44 at Marne, in Kent and Ottawa Counties, MI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ C&M does not presently offer freight service over the line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction is expected to be consummated on or after February 
1, 1997.
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke does not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33344, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1201 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20423. In addition, a copy of each 
pleading must be served on Michael W. Blaszak, Esq., 211 South Leitch 
Avenue, LaGrante, IL 60525-2162.

    Decided: January 31, 1996.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3109 Filed 2-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1891 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1891

   To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 2021

     Mr. Schrader (for himself, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. DeFazio, and Mr. 
 Blumenauer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. GRAND RONDE RESERVATION ACT AMENDMENT.

    Section 1(d) of Public Law 100-425 (commonly known as the ``Grand 
Ronde Reservation Act'') (102 Stat. 1594) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``lands within the State 
        of Oregon'' and inserting ``the 84 acres known as the Thompson 
        Strip'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
            ``(2) Gaming prohibition.--Any real property obtained by 
        the Tribes as part of a land claim settlement approved by the 
        United States shall not be eligible, or used, for any class II 
        gaming or class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
        Act (25 U.S.C. 2701, et seq.) (as those terms are defined in 
        section 4 of that Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)).''.

SEC. 2. TREATY RIGHTS OF FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES.

    Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be 
construed to enlarge, confirm, adjudicate, affect, or modify any treaty 
right of an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)).
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 230 (Monday, December 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63518-63519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31441]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 112497A]


Longline Advisory Panel; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Longline Advisory Panel (AP) for the pelagic longline 
fishery for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) will hold its third 
meeting on Dec. 9, 1997, in Alexandria, VA to discuss the draft report 
on the future management options for the pelagic longline fishery.

DATES: The longline AP will meet on Dec. 9, 1997, from 9:30 a.m. to 
5:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The AP meeting will be held at the Ramada Plaza Hotel in 
Alexandria, VA, 901 North Fairfax Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.


[[Page 63519]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Stevenson or Liz Lauck, 1315 
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, telephone: (301) 713-2347, 
Fax: (301) 713-1917.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Longline AP was established under the 
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The Longline AP will assist the Secretary 
of Commerce in preparing a study on the feasibility of implementing a 
comprehensive management system for the pelagic longline fishery for 
Atlantic HMS. The AP meeting is open to the public and will be attended 
by members of the AP, including appointed members, representatives of 
the five Fishery Management Councils that work with HMS, the Atlantic 
and Gulf states. The main agenda item for the longline AP will be a 
discussion of the draft report on the feasibility of implementing a 
comprehensive management system for the longline fishery.
    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Jill Stevenson or Liz Lauck (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: November 24, 1997.
Gary C. Matlock,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-31441 Filed 11-25-97; 4:32 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Cleveland RICHBERG, Appellee.

No. 70-159.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 25, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7441

EVELYN GUNN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-2543-13AK) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 28, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Evelyn Gunn, 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: Evelyn Gunn seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Gunn v. South Carolina , No. CA-00-2543-2-13AK (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
June 18, 2014

Mr. John Hebbelman Jr.

715 Hebbelman Lane

Chinook, MT 59523

Dear Mr. Hebbleman :

This is in response to your letter dated May 7 , 201 4

, petitioning the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) for an extension of Exemption No. 10110

. That exemption from

§ 91.109(a) and (b)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allow ed you to

conduct certain flight instruction in Beechcraft Bonanza, Debonair, Baron and Travel Air

air craft equipped with a functioning throwover control wheel instead of functioning dual

controls

.

On August 19, 2011, the FAA issued a revision to 14 CFR § 91.109 as part of the “Pilot in

Command Proficiency Check and Other Changes to the Pilot and Pilot School Certification

Rules” final rule (76 FR 54095; August 31, 2011), which became effective October 31, 2011.

A copy of the rule is enclosed.

Since the relief you requested is now permitted in the revised § 91.109, an exemption is no

longer required. Therefore we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

//s//

Brenda D. Courtney

Manager, Aircraft and Ai rport Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Brian L. Roberts, certify that:

Date:
August 11, 2005

/s/BRIAN L. ROBERTS

---

Name: Brian L. Roberts
Chief Executive Officer

---



I,
Lawrence S. Smith, certify that:

Date:
August 11, 2005

/s/LAWRENCE S. SMITH

---

Name: Lawrence S. Smith
Co-Chief Financial Officer

---



I,
John R. Alchin, certify that:

Date:
August 11, 2005

/s/JOHN R. ALCHIN

---

Name: John R. Alchin
Co-Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
#### Herman JENKINS, Jr., Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-859.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 30, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
September 4, 2015

Mr. Luiz Leonetti

24 Nevada Avenue

Asheville, NC 28806

Dear Mr. Leonetti:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and 

(b), 91.405(a)(1), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you 

should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your June 16, 2015, exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2418, 

but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62334-62335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30605]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


Notice of Intent To Negotiate Agreements Between the Wasatch 
County Special Service Area #1, and Department of the Interior for the 
Purchase of the Timpanogos and Wasatch Canals as Part of the Wasatch 
County Water Efficiency Project and Daniel Replacement Project of the 
Central Utah Project Completion Act

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary--Water and Science, 
Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent to negotiate agreements between Wasatch County 
Special Service Area #1 (WCSSA), and Department of the Interior for the 
purchase of the Timpanogos and Wasatch Canals as part of the Wasatch 
County Water Efficiency Project and Daniel Replacement Project (WCWEP 
and DRP) under the Central Utah Project Completion Act.

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

SUMMARY: Public Law 102-575, Central Utah Project Completion Act, 
Sections 202(a)(3), 207(e), and 303(b), allows for the construction of 
the WCWEP and

[[Page 62335]]

DRP as part of the Central Utah Project. The WCWEP and DRP Projects 
provide for increasing irrigation efficiency in the Heber Valley, 
conserving water, and eliminating the diversion of water from the upper 
Strawberry River tributaries to Heber Valley. As part of these 
projects, the United States plans to acquire the Timpanogos and Wasatch 
Canals from WCSSA. These two canals are features which have 
historically been used to convey Provo River water to Heber Valley 
irrigators. The canals will be used to convey project water and non-
project water for irrigation purposes.
    The purpose of the negotiation sessions will be to agree upon the 
price and the details for the United States to purchase Timpanogos and 
Wasatch Canals from WCSSA.

DATES: Dates for public negotiation sessions will be announced in local 
newspapers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Additional information on matters related to 
this Federal Register notice can be obtained at the address and 
telephone number set forth below: Mr. Reed Murray, Program Coordinator, 
CUP Completion Act Office, Department of the Interior, 302 East 1860 
South, Provo, UT 84606-6154, Telephone: (801) 379-1237, E-Mail address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b09160e09091a023b0e18550e081909551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="60120d15121201192015034e151302124e070f16">[email protected]</span></a>

    Dated: November 17, 1997.
Ronald Johnston,
CUP Program Director, Department of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 97-30605 Filed 11-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 11: Page 1 of 2

WESTERN STATES OFFICE AND 

PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND

THIRD SUSPENSION APPLICATION

Exhibit 11