alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MASONRY PRODUCTS, INC. and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Petitioners, v. Sergio GONZALEZ et al., Respondents.

No. 43027.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 21, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur..

DEKLE, J., dissents.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Nieves, Appellant.

[737 NYS2d 73]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered September 18, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to three concurrent terms of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence warranted the conclusion that, as part of their drug-selling enterprise, defendant and the codefendant jointly possessed the additional drugs found on the ground in a small brown paper bag *(People v Tirado,*38 NY2d 955; *People v Dean,*200 AD2d 582, *lv denied*83 NY2d 871).

The nonprerecorded money recovered from defendant upon his arrest was properly admitted into evidence since it was relevant to the charge of possession with intent to sell *(see, People v Brooks,*234 AD2d 149, *lv denied*89 NY2d 1009). The comments made by the prosecutor concerning defendant’s possession of the money were properly responsive to defense counsel’s summation *(see, People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133, *lv denied*91 NY2d 976).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s application for an adjournment to secure the presence of an alibi witness. Defendant failed to demonstrate that *372good faith efforts were made to locate the witness or that the witness would be located and would appear following the adjournment (see, *People v Foy,*32 NY2d 473, 478). Moreover, the testimony of such witness would have been cumulative since defendant called another alibi witness at trial who testified to the particular facts in issue. Accordingly, there was no violation of defendant’s right to present a defense.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.
#### Leroy PASLEY, Petitioner, v. GRANT SHOLK CONSTRUCTION CO. et al., Respondents.

No. 42741.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 30, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21
- 0205 LSF 8 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, Plaint iff and Appellees,
v. PAMELA J. STOKES AND JOHN S TOKES, Defendants and Appellants. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parti es having failed to j oint ly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Douglas J.**  **Wold ,**  **P.O. Box**  **400, Polson,**  **MT 5**  **9860 ,**  **doug@woldla wfirm.com**  **,** whose name appears next on th e list of attorneys desiring appoint me nt as mediators f o r Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appo int ed to conduct th e mediat io n process requi red by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th at th e time peri ods set fo rth in M.R.App. P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appoint me nt . A true copy

of this order is being mailed to counsel of record f or the parti es, or to th e parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED thi s May 25, 2021.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court
c: Pamela Jeanne Stokes, John Patrick Stokes, 12887 Raven W ay, B i g Fork, MT 59911, (406)837
- 2283 Jason Jam es Henderson, 38 Second Street E a st , Suit e B, Di ckinson, ND 58601 , (701)495
- 001 4, ja son@hwmlawfirm.co m Douglas J. Wold , address listed a bove 05/25/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0205
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10189 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus IVAN DAYLE NORTH, doing business as Air Space Supply, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-96-1-A

- - - - - - - - - - December 11, 1997 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ivan North appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to mail fraud. North contends that the district court erred in calculating the loss which resulted from his conduct. North also contends that the district court failed to make adequate factual findings when it enhanced his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for being an organizer or leader of criminal activity that was otherwise extensive.No. 97-10189 -2- We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that the district court’s loss calculation was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Brown , 7 F.3d 1155, 1159 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Marcus , 82 F.3d 606, 610 (4th Cir. 1996). We further hold that the district court sufficiently articulated the factual basis for its finding that North was an organizer or leader of criminal activity that was otherwise extensive. Moreover, the district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Allibhai , 939 F.2d 244, 252-53 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Pierce , 893 F.2d 669, 676-77 (5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
Territory Total Funding Funding Based on Population Funding from Even Distribution 

American Samoa $479,135,254.00 $29,135,254.00 $450,000,000.00 

Guam $553,582,247.00 $103,582,247.00 $450,000,000.00 

Northern Mariana Islands $481,876,521.00 $31,876,521.00 $450,000,000.00 

Puerto Rico $2,470,061,908.00 $2,020,061,908.00 $450,000,000.00 

Virgin Islands $515,344,070.00 $65,344,070.00 $450,000,000.00 

TOTAL $4,500,000,000.00 $2,250,000,000.00 $2,250,000,000.00
#### Melvin A. ROBINSON, et al., Appellants, v. LOYOLA FOUNDATION, INC., Appellee.

No. 39636.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 29, 1972.

Cause dismissed.
#### Sigrud RAMBERG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-985.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 10

- 866 V

(Not to be published 1 )

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

JANELLE A. SEIBOLD

, *

*

Petitioner, * Filed: August 16 , 2013

*

v. * De cision by s tipulation; i nfluenza

* vaccine; Guillain Barre Syndrome

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * (GBS)

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DECISION

HASTINGS, Special Master

.

This is an action seeking an award under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation

Progra m 2 on account of an inj u ry suffered by Janelle A. Seibold

. On August 1 5 , 2013 , counsel

for both parties filed a Stipulation, stipulating that a decision should be entered granting

compensation. The parties have stipulated that petitioner shall receive the following

compensation:

1 Because this document contains an explanation for my action in this case, I intend to post

this doc ument on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the

E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002).

Therefore, as provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request

redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade secret or commercial or

financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that are medical files and similar

files the disclosure of which would constitute a c learly unwarranted invasion of privacy.”

Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, this entire document will be available to the public. Id.

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the Program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 10

et seq. (2006 ed .). Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all "§" references will be to 42 U.S.C. (2006

ed.).● A lump sum of $ 285 ,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner,

representing compensation for all damages that would be available under

42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 15(a).

Under the statute governing the Program, as well as the “Vaccine Rules” adopted by this

court, the special master must now enter a decision endorsing that stipulation, and the clerk must

enter judgment, in order to authorize payment of the award. See § 30 0aa

- 12(d)(3)(A) and (e)(3);

§ 300aa

- 13( a); Vaccine Rules 10(a), 11(a). 3

I have reviewed the file, and based on that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation

appears to be an appropriate one. Accordingly, my decision is that a Program award sh all be

m ade to petitioner in the amount set forth above. In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for

review of this Decision, the clerk shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George L. Hastings, Jr.

George L. Hastings, Jr.

Special Master

3 The “Vaccine Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims” are found in Appendix B of

the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims.
#### MAISON GRANDE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., etc., Appellant, v. DORTEN, INC., a Florida Corp., Robert L. Siegel, etc., Appellees. DORTEN, INC., a Florida Corp., Robert L. Siegel, etc., Appellants, v. MAISON GRANDE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., etc., Appellee.

Nos. 77-493 and 77-1541.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 9, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 2, 1978.

Smith, Mandler, Smith, Werner & Jaco-bowitz and Patricia M. Silver, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Schwartz, Klein & Steinhardt, Miami, Conboy, Hewitt, O’Brien & Boardman, New York City, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

KEHOE, Judge.

These consolidated appeals are brought from a final judgment dated February 17, 1977, and an order allowing interest and denying attorney’s fees dated June 15,1977, entered by the trial court. Both the final judgment and the order appealed are affirmed.

It is axiomatic that an order or judgment of the trial court is generally presumed to be correct. A corollary to the presumption of correctness of the trial court’s decision is, of course, the rule as to the burden of showing error. The one who asserts error has the burden of showing it. Such a burden has been spoken of as a duty. It can be met only by making reversible error clearly, definitely, and fully appear. Failure to meet the burden impels the conclusion that there is no error in the record, and that the order or judgment must be affirmed.

In the light of these and the other controlling principles of law, we have carefully reviewed the entire record, studied the briefs of the parties, and listened to the oral arguments of counsel. This consideration has led us to the conclusion that the parties have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating any error. Accordingly, the final judgment and order appealed are affirmed.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SYE C. NEWTON,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§ No. 532, 2015

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ Cr. ID 0805017969

§ 

§

§

Submitted: December 23, 2015

Decided: December 30, 2015

ORDER

This 30th day of December 2015, it appears to the Court that, on December 

3, 2015, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why 

his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file his opening brief and 

appendix in this matter. The appellant has failed to respond to the notice to show 

cause within the required ten-day period; therefore, dismissal of this action is 

deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 

Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Justice
#### Robert John ERLER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40505.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 30, 1971.

Joseph A. Varón, of Varón & Stahl, Hollywood, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of certiorari having been heretofore issued, argument having been heard, and the Court having examined the record and briefs, it appears the writ was improvidently issued. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari heretofore issued in this cause is discharged.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD, DEKLE and DREW (Retired), JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.

ERVIN, Justice

(dissenting).

I dissent from the discharge of writ and adopt as my opinion Judge McCain’s dissenting opinion in Erler v. State, Fla.App.1970, 241 So.2d 202.
#### Carl H. MURPHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 73-299, 73-300.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 21, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 16, 2011 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 50 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :1 0- cr-0 01 08 -BAE-GRS- 1
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us SHEDRICK SPAULDING, JR ., a.k .a. Al, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen dant -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di stric t Co urt forth e So uthe rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 16 , 20 11 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Am y Lee Co pe land , app oi nt edco un se l fo r Sh edric k S paul di ng , Jr., h as fil eda m ot io n t o wi th dr aw on ap pe al supp orte d b y a br ie f pr ep aredpu rs uantto Ander s v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S. Ct. 1 39 6, 1 8 L. Ed. 2 d 4 93 (19 67 ). Our in de pe nd en t re vi ew of

th e en ti re re co rdrev eal s tha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri ts of the ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re re co rdrev eal s n o arg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andSp au ld in g’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e are AFFIRMED .

2
#### Wayne B. MARTIN and George F. Schmitt, Petitioners, v. Lawrence H. TUCKER, Respondent.

No. 69-972.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 19, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1989 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1989

To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the time limitation 
  for the use of entitlement by certain veterans under the Post-9/11 
 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2021

  Mr. Steube introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the time limitation 
  for the use of entitlement by certain veterans under the Post-9/11 
 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    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 ``Time of Service Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF TIME LIMITATION FOR USE OF ENTITLEMENT UNDER 
              POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OF DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    Section 3321(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``January 1, 2013'' and 
        inserting ``January 1, 2001''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``January 1, 2013'' and 
        inserting ``January 1, 2001''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31650]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP92-132-057]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes In 
FERC Gas Tariff

November 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 24, 1997, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 
Company (Tennessee) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following Revised Tariff 
Sheets, to become effective commencing October 1, 1994:

Third Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 26
Second Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 26
Substitute First Revised Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 26
Substitute First Revised Third Revised Sheet No. 26
Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 26
Substitute Sixth Revised Sheet No. 26
Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 26
First Revised Seventh Revised Sheet No. 26
Second Substitute Ninth Revised Sheet No. 26
Third Substitute Alternate First Revised Sheet No. 181
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 181
Second Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 181
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 181

    Tennessee states that the filing is being made in compliance with 
the Commission's determination in its October 23, 1997 Order in this 
docket that the rate which Tennessee was charging Flagg Energy 
Development Corporation (Flagg) was not just and reasonable and with 
its requirement that Tennessee file tariff sheets in order to 
``reinstate the prior rate for Flagg.''
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sec. 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31650 Filed 12-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31305]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Enterprise Computer Telephony Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 2, 1997, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Enterprise Computer 
Telephony Forum (``ECTF'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in 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, Aculab, plc., Bucks, UNITED KINGDOM; 
CallScan, Ltd., Birmingham, ENGLAND; and Hewlett-Packard Company, 
Cupertino, CA, have become Principal Members. Communiq ASA, Sola, 
NORWAY; CTI Market Solutions, Menlo Park, CA; Electronic 
Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), Taejon, KOREA; Spectrum 
Signal Processing, Burnaby, CANADA; and VideoServer, Inc., Burlington, 
MA, have become Auditing Members. ITEC Telecom, Santafe De Bogota DC, 
COLUMBIA, has become a User Member.
    Database Network Services is no longer a Principal Member.
    Technology Marketing Partners (an Auditing Member) has changed its 
name to Vicorp.
    No other changes have been made in the membership, nature or 
objectives of ECTF. Membership remains open, and ECTF intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On February 20, 1996, ECTF filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
May 13, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 22074).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 14, 
1997. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 6, 1997 (62 Fed. Reg. 52152).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-31305 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
C:\Users\Presberryw\Documents\TICKET_FILES\1Q-REPORT-16.Docx June 30, 2016 (10:32 AM)

Quarterly Report to Congress on International Monetary Fund Lending 

January 1 – March 31, 2016 

Board 

Approval Date Country Amount Type U.S. Position 

3/14/16 Kenya SDR 709.259 million 

($989.8 million) 

SDR 354.629 million 

($494.9 million) 

24-month SBA 

24-month SCF 

Support http:

rdoc

p?do