alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Donald Phillip SCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. HH-28.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 13, 1978.

Rehearing Denied March 27, 1978.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the Court on appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court, Second Judicial Circuit, entered, on a jury verdict finding Defendant guilty of involuntary sexual battery and burglary of a dwelling and sentencing him as a multiple felony offender to thirty (30) years imprisonment for involuntary sexual battery, and life imprisonment for burglary.

The public defender has filed a brief reviewing the evidence in this case and any possible objections by Defendant to the proceedings below, with the conclusion that no error occurred in the proceedings. On motion of the public defender, this Court has allowed Defendant additional time within which to file any brief in his own behalf he may , deem advisable. No such brief has been filed. We have, nevertheless, reviewed the record and find no error.

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6580

CASEY RAFAEL TYLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN SAPPER; MS. LEARY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-ct-03003-D)

Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 16, 2024

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Casey Rafael Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6580 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Casey Rafael Tyler appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment and granting in part and denying in part Tyler’s motion to alter or 

amend the judgment in his action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious 

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc to 2000cc-5. We have 

reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment and orders. Tyler v. Sapper, No. 5:21-ct-02002-D (E.D.N.C. May 2, 

2023; June 14, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6580 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Delmer SARGENT, Appellant, v. MIDLANTIC NATIONAL BANK, a National Banking Corporation, Appellee.

No. 77-1778.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 12, 1978.

*856Owen L. Luckey, Jr. of Luckey & Harrell, Labelle, for appellant.

R. Thomas Corbin of Allen, Knudsen, Swartz, DeBoest, Rhoads & Edwards, Fort Myers, for appellee.

HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant appeals a final judgment awarding damages to appellee in this suit for conversion. Appellee cross-appeals the denial of interest from the date of conversion to the date of judgment.

We affirm the judgment, but remand this cause for the purpose of amending the final judgment to include interest thereon from the date of conversion to the date of the judgment. *Gillette v. Stapleton,*336 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7901

ANTHONY ANDREWS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN K. DOBBS, Warden FCI Williamsburg,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:20-cv-03026-DCN)

Submitted: May 4, 2021 Decided: May 26, 2021

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Andrews appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 petition. We review de novo a district court’s order denying a § 2241 petition. 

Fontanez v. O’Brien, 807 F.3d 84, 86 (4th Cir. 2015). The district court declined to address 

the merits of Andrews’ claims because it determined that Andrews’ § 2241 petition was 

duplicative of the matters pending in the sentencing court and on direct appeal from that 

court. We acknowledge the overlap between his § 2241 arguments and his direct appeal. 

Despite that overlap, the arguments here are not identical to those made in his direct appeal 

and they appear to be proper for a § 2241 claim. See Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Gross, 468 F.3d 

199, 206-07 & n.6 (4th Cir. 2006); Smith v. SEC, 129 F.3d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 1997).

However, even if Andrews is correct that the district court should have addressed 

the merits of his petition, “we may affirm a district court’s ruling on any ground apparent 

in the record.” United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th Cir. 

2015). Andrews’ arguments fail on the merits. He is not entitled to good-time credits on 

his revocation sentence because the district court sentenced him to 12 months’ 

imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). Under § 3624(b)(1), a prisoner is only entitled 

to good-time credit if he is “serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year.” Id. We 

do not read United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019) to allow Andrews to use 

the time he served on supervised release for his 2001 conviction as a credit for the prison 

sentence imposed in 2018 for new criminal conduct. See Kidd v. Fikes, No. 20-cv-287 

(SRN/TNL), 2020 WL 7210025, at *3 (D. Minn. Aug. 17, 2020) (collecting cases).

Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order.
3

 Last, we deny Andrews’ motion to proceed by pseudonym. This issue was raised 

for the first time on appeal and Andrews does not offer evidence of exceptional 

circumstances that would justify reversing the district court on this issue. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### MID-LOUISIANA GAS COMPANY v. John E. SANCHEZ et al.

No. 53815.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 7, 1973.

In re: John E. Sanchez, et al applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of St. James. 280 So.2d 406.

Writ denied. On the facts found, the result is correct.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3171]


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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Research, High Energy Physics Advisory Panel; 
Notice of Open Meeting

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770), notice is given of a meeting of the 
High Energy Physics Advisory Panel.

DATES: Thursday, March 13, 1997; 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and Friday, 
March 14, 1997; 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Robert Diebold, Executive 
Secretary, High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, U.S. Department of 
Energy, ER-22, GTN, Germantown, Maryland 20874, Telephone: (301) 903-
4801.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Meeting: To provide advice and guidance on a 
continuing basis with respect to the high energy physics research 
program.

Tentative Agenda

Thursday, March 13, 1997 and Friday, March 14, 1997

Discussion of Department of Energy High Energy Physics Programs and FY 
1998 Budget
Discussion of National Science Foundation Elementary Particle Physics 
Programs and FY 1998 Budget
Discussion of the Status of the Large Hadron Collider Project and U.S. 
Participation
Discussion of University-based High Energy Physics Programs
Discussion of Planning for the Future of the National High Energy 
Physics Program
Reports on and Discussions of Topics of General Interest in High Energy 
Physics
Public Comment (10 minute rule)

    Public Participation: The two-day meeting is open to the public. 
The Chairperson of the Panel is empowered to conduct the meeting in a 
fashion that will, in his judgment, facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Any member of the public who wishes to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact the Executive Secretary at 
the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received 
at least 5 days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be 
made to include the presentation on the agenda.
    Minutes: Available for public review and copying at the Public 
Reading Room, Room 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued at Washington, D.C. on February 4, 1997.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Acting Deputy Advisory Committee, Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-3171 Filed 2-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Memo

Financing Marketable All Other Change in End-Of-Quarter SOMA

Need Borrowing Sources Total Cash Balance Cash Balance Redemptions

Quarter Announcement Date (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) + (3) (5) = (4) - (1) (6) (7)

Jan - Mar

2011 Actual 470 265 (20) 245 (225) 118 0

Apr - Jun

2011 Actual 149 190 (22) 167 19 137 0

Jul - Sep

2011 Actual 342 286 (23) 264 (79) 58 0

Oct - Dec

2011 Actual 284 310 2 312 28 86 0

Jan - Mar

2012 Actual 440 401 (3) 398 (42) 43 0

Apr - Jun

2012 Actual 129 172 5 177 48 91 0

Jul - Sep

2012 Actual 234 264 (36) 228 (6) 85 (32)

Oct - Dec

2012 Actual 291 297 1 298 7 93 (1)

Jan - Mar

2013 Actual 354 349 (8) 341 (14) 79 0

Apr - Jun

2013 Actual (73) (11) (7) (18) 56 135 0

Jul - Sep

2013 Actual 205 197 (38) 159 (46) 88 0

Oct - Dec

2013 Actual 179 264 (11) 253 74 162 0

Jan - Mar

2014 Actual 275 265 (10) 254 (20) 142 0

Apr - Jun

2014 Actual (60) (64) 1 (63) (3) 139 0

Jul - Sep

2014 Actual 176 205 (10) 195 19 158 0

Oct - Dec

2014 Actual 170 227 8 236 65 223 0

Jan - Mar

2015 Actual 268 141 3 144 (123) 100 0

Apr - Jun

2015 Actual (120) 57 (22) 35 154 254 0

Jul - Sep

2015 Actual 163 133 (26) 107 (56) 199 0

Oct - Dec

2015 Actual 212 354 (7) 347 135 333 0

Jan - Mar

2016 Actual 266 244 3 247 (20) 314 0

Apr - Jun

2016 Actual (60) (25) 14 (10) 50 364 0

Jul - Sep August 1, 2016 220 201 5 207 (14) 350 0

2016 Actual 234 222 2 224 (10) 353 0

Forecast Revisions 14 21 (4) 18 3 3 0

Oct - Dec August 1, 2016 144 182 2 184 40 390 0

2016 October 31, 2016 151 188 (1) 187 37 390 0

Forecast Revisions 6 6 (3) 3 (3) 0 0

Jan - Mar

2017 October 31, 2016 349 56 3 59 (290) 100 0

Sources and Uses Reconciliation Table

Financing
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000072741
<NAME> NORTHEAST UTILITIES AND SUBSIDIARIES
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    6,353,106
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    757,834
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         959,630
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     2,201,174
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,271,744
<COMMON>                                       684,287
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      934,825
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            689,573
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               2,158,081
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          222,072
<PREFERRED>                                    136,200
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         3,462,197
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              35,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  394,808
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                       30,250
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     29,129
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               179,138
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               3,474,265
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               10,271,744
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      958,905
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            13,737
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     901,656
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     918,417
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         40,488
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              13,449
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  56,961
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        67,588
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,627)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      7,322
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  (17,949)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         298,446
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        



</TABLE>
#### Joseph Raymond GREER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-789.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Table 1 Net Interest Income and Valuation Changes Related to U.S. Participation 

 -- General Account --

U.S. Fiscal Year, Quarterly 

($M U.S. Dollars)

Transactions with the IMF Interest Calculations V

Fiscal Year Ended 9/30

Transactions Under U.S. 

Quota (Letter of Credit 

&Transfers of Reserve 

Assets) Cumulative

U.S. Loans to IMF 

(Under SFF, GAB, 

NAB) 

Cumulative

Total U.S. 

Transactions with 

the IMF 

Interest Expense 

Associated with 

Financing U.S. 

Transactions with 

the IMF

Remuneration 

Received by U.S. 

from IMF & 

Refund of Burden 

Sharing

Interest Received 

from IMF Under 

SFF, GAB, and 

NAB 

Net Interest 

Income

Valu

on 

(Col 1+2) (Col. 4+5+6) 

 Col. 1 Col. 2 Col. 3 Col. 4 Col.5 Col.6 Col. 7 

2000

Q1: Oct - Dec 99 -$14,263 $0 -$14,263 -$165 $147 $0 -$18 Q2: Jan - Mar 00 -14,484 0 -14,484 -171 148 0 -24 Q3: Apr - June 00 -12,161 0 -12,161 -146 144 0 -2 Q4: July - Sept 00 -10,864 0 -10,864 -139 139 0 0 

Total -$621 $578 $0 -$43 2001

Q1: Oct - Dec 00 -$11,949 $0 -$11,949 -$138 $133 $0 -$5 Q2: Jan - Mar 01 -11,378 0 -11,378 -128 139 0 11 Q3: Apr - June 01 -12,389 0 -12,389 -109 115 0 5 Q4: July - Sept 01 -15,632 0 -15,632 -109 105 0 -4 

Total -$484 $492 $0 $7 2002

Q1: Oct - Dec 01 -$15,547 $0 -$15,547 -$87 $105 $0 $18 Q2: Jan - Mar 02 -14,875 0 -14,875 -82 83 0 1 Q3: Apr - June 02 -16,500 0 -16,500 -80 81 0 1 Q4: July - Sept 02 -17,635 0 -17,635 -88 103 0 15 

Total -$337 $372 $0 $34 2003

Q1: Oct - Dec 02 -$18,152 $0 -$18,152 -$79 $97 $0 $18 Q2: Jan - Mar 03 -18,826 0 -18,826 -72 91 0 19 Q3: Apr - June 03 -18,737 0 -18,737 -67 82 0 15 Q4: July - Sept 03 -19,136 0 -19,136 -65 78 0 13 

Total -$283 $348 $0 $65 2004

Q1: Oct - Dec 03 -$16,702 $0 -$16,702 -$65 $78 $0 $13 
Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Data and Methodology for Allocations to

Indian Tribes and Tribally Designated Housing Entities

January 19, 2021

Section 501(b)(2)(A)(ii) of Division N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (the “Act”)

requires Treasury to allocate $797.6 million to Indian tribes and tribally designated housing 

entities (TDHE) using a formula based on the amounts they were eligible to receive for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2020 from the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program.

1

 Those amounts can be 

found here:

https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/FY%202020%20Final%20Allocation%20Sheet

s.xls, column T. 

The statute provides that each IHBG participant receives the same proportion of the $797.6 

million as it was eligible to receive of total funding in FY 2020 for the IHBG program. The 

statute also provides that tribes that did not participate in the IHBG program in FY 2020 be given 

30 days to determine whether to participate in the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program. 

Treasury has received responses from those tribes. There are three tribes that elected not to 

participate in the total funding for the IHBG program. 

The Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians and the Prairie Island Indian Community, two 

of the three Indian tribes that did not choose to receive an FY 2020 IHBG allocation, have 

declined to participate in the ERA program. 

The third Indian tribe that did not choose to receive an FY 2020 IHBG allocation, the Mohegan 

Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (Mohegan), has opted to participate in the ERA program. 

To determine an amount to add for Mohegan, Treasury asked HUD to recompute the FY 2020 

IHBG tribal allocations as though Mohegan had participated in the program. According to HUD, 

the allocation Mohegan would have received under the FY 2020 IHBG allocations is equal to the 

IHBG minimum. Accordingly, Treasury has assigned Mohegan an allocation equivalent to the 

IHBG minimum pro-rata share of ERA funding. This approach treats Mohegan equitably 

because it uses the same allocation framework as applies to the other Indian tribes. Further, it 

uses data available from HUD of the same vintage to make the computation and thereby does not 

place other participating Indian tribes at a disadvantage. Pro-rata reductions authorized under 

Section 501(b)(2)(B)(i) of Division N of the Act were made to ensure the total ERA tribal 

funding including Mohegan did not exceed $797.6 million. 

Each tribe will receive approximately 121 percent of their FY 2020 IHBG formula allocation. 

1 Section 501(a)(2)(B) of Division N of the Act provides a total of $800 million for tribal communities. After 

subtracting the 0.3 percent ($2.4 million) allocated for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands directed under 

Section 501(b)(2)(A)(i) of Division N of the Act, $797.6 million is available for Indian tribes and TDHEs.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                             COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                          (Dollar Amounts in Thousands)
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                          NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                             SEPTEMBER 30,                          YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                        ----------------------    -------------------------------------------------------------
                                           1999         1998         1998         1997        1996         1995         1994
                                        ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------
<S>                                     <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Interest Expense                        $  39,100    $  87,500    $ 101,900    $  90,400    $ 142,100    $ 151,000    $  73,300

Estimated Interest Portion of
    Rent Expense                           10,736        9,144       12,352       10,864       10,035       10,064       10,321
                                        ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------
Fixed Charges                           $  49,836    $  96,644    $ 114,252    $ 101,264    $ 152,135    $ 161,064    $  83,621
                                        =========    =========    =========    =========    =========    =========    =========
Income From Continuing
    Operations Before Income Taxes      $ 387,400    $ 323,400    $ 523,600    $ 483,200    $ 470,700    $ 297,300    $ 314,600

Add:     Fixed Charges                     49,836       96,644      114,252      101,264      152,135      161,064       83,621

         Dividends From Less Than
         50% Owned Companies                    -            -            -            -          287          968          549

Less:    Equity in (Earnings) / Losses
         of Less Than 50% Owned
         Companies                           (240)         145          595         (320 )     (1,609)        (996)      (1,776)
                                        ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------
Earnings Before Fixed Charges           $ 436,996    $ 420,189    $ 638,447    $ 584,144    $ 621,513    $ 458,336    $ 396,994
                                        =========    =========    =========    =========    =========    =========    =========
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges        8.8x         4.3x         5.6x         5.8x         4.1x         2.8x         4.7x
</TABLE>
#### D. R. W., a minor child, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42550.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 13, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1973.

*115Sydney L. Weintraub, Miami, and Douglas E. Ombres, Key Biscayne, of Weintraub & Weintraub, Miami, for petitioner.

James G. Mahorner, Gen. Counsel, State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 262 So.2d 701.

The decision sought to be reviewed directly conflicts with V. D. B. v. State, 261 So.2d 857 (Fla.App.lst 1972), recently affirmed by this Court in 270 So.2d 6, opinion filed November 29, 1972, holding the standard of proof required in the adjudication phase of a juvenile delinquency proceeding to be the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” where the offense charged would be a crime if committed by an adult.

In view of our recent decision in State v. V. D. B.1 resolving the very question here presented, it is unnecessary to have any arguments or briefs on the merits in this cause and they are, therefore, dispensed with.

Accordingly, certiorari is granted, the decision sought to be reviewed is quashed to the extent inconsistent with State v. V. D. B., supra, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ, concur.

1

. 270 So.2d 6, Case No. 42,465, opinion filed November 29,1972.