alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Arnold FLICKER, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Edwin DUFF, II, Sheriff of Volusia County, Florida, Respondent.

No. V-73.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 14, 1974.

Maurice Wagner, Holly Hill, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

RAWLS, Chief Judge.

By petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner, Arnold Flicker, seeks bail pending trial for the crime of first degree murder. Petitioner alleges that he has made numerous efforts to obtain bond beginning on or about the 16th day of October, 1973, and that at a preliminary hearing held on November 9-10, 1973, the committing magistrate after conclusion of said proceedings “did find that the proof of the defendant Flicker’s guilt appeared to be evident, presumption of defendant’s guilt appeared to be great, and therefore the defendant’s application for bail submitted at the begin*130ning of that hearing was denied. Petitioner further alleges that in subsequent proceedings in the name of habeas corpus and petition for rehearing, he sought application for bail — the last denial of same being on the 7th day of January, 1974.

The instant petition alleges that no evidence was presented before any court which would support the denial of petitioner’s right to bail in that all evidence of his alleged guilt in the instant cause that has been considered by the Circuit Court and the committing magistrate is circumstantial or hearsay evidence. The petitioner fails to support the foregoing allegations by any record other than the bald allegations recited. Petitioner’s attorney does attach to the instant petition extensive directions to the clerk to prepare and transmit to this Court the extensive record that has been developed concerning this question.

It is elementary that the office of the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of the restraint of any person, and a petition for same must make out a prima facie case. The bald allegations made by petitioner are not supported by any record. A petition for writ of habeas corpus does not serve as a notice of appeal from the denial of bail. As stated by Mr. Justice Dekle in State ex rel. Scaldeferri v. Sandstrom, 285 So.2d 409 (Fla. 1973):

> “If a proceeding on bail is filed in. the appellate court as a petition for habeas corpus and is accompanied by a sufficient record and affidavits for a determination in the appellate court it is proper for review there.”

As stated above, the subject petition is not accompanied by any record nor any affidavits for determination or consideration by this Court. Directions to the clerk filed by petitions of attorney are not proper in the original proceeding of habeas corpus. An appeal was available to petitioner for an orderly review of the grievances alleged. State v. Thursby, 184 So.2d 505 (1 Fla. App.1966).

The subject petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### Marvin D. MAYBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles STARR, Classification Director, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-2563.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

July 29, 2002.

*680Before SILER, COLE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

Marvin D. Mayberry, a Michigan state prisoner, appeals pro se a district court order dismissing his civil rights complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Mayberry filed this complaint against prison officials, alleging that he was being confined to his cell as a sanction for refusing work assignments, without due process. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(l). Mayberry reasserts his claim on appeal.

Review of the complaint in this case reveals that it was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim, as Mayberry could prove no facts consistent with his allegations which would entitle him to relief. *Jones v. City of Carlisle, Ky.,*3 F.3d 945, 947 (6th Cir.1993).

Mayberry was not entitled to relief, as he has no liberty interest at stake to trigger due process protections. Confinement to his cell during work hours for refusal to accept a work assignment does not constitute an atypical and significant hardship. *Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); *Rim-mer-Bey v. Brown,*62 F.3d 789, 790-91 (6th Cir.1995) (administrative segregation). Because the complaint plainly failed to state a claim for relief on its face, the district court’s order of dismissal is hereby affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32979]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Transfer of License

December 12, 1997.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been 
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Transfer of License.
    b. Project No.: 2373-008.
    c. Date filed: November 5, 1997.
    d. Applicants: Wisconsin Power & Light Company and Midwest Hydro, 
Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Rockton.
    f. Location: On the Rock River, in the Town of Rockton, in 
Winnebago County, Illinois.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 USC 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicants Contact: Charles Alsberg, President, Midwest Hydro, 
Inc., 116 State Street, P.O. BOX 167, Neshkoro, WI 54960, (920) 292-
4628.
    i. FERC Contact: Thomas F. Papsidero (202) 219-2715.
    j. Comment Date: January 28, 1998.
    k. Description of Filing: Application to transfer the license for 
the Rockton Project to Midwest Hydro, Inc.
    l. This notice also consists of the following standard papragraphs: 
B, C1, & D2.
    B. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit 
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the 
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, 
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission 
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who 
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules 
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or 
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified 
comment date for the particular application.
    C1. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must 
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS 
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as 
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to 
which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed 
by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the 
Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. A copy of 
any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of 
the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    D2. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited 
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the 
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If 
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing 
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of agency's 
comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32979 Filed 12-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Harvey Leon PRATER, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-387.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 29, 1970.

*317Harvey Leon Prater in pro per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Upon petition filed initially in this court by petitioner Harvey Leon Prater, we issued an Order to Show Cause to respondent Wainwright as the official custodian of petitioner who is serving a term of imprisonment in a state road prison, pursuant to a judgment of conviction of a criminal offense after trial in the Manatee County Court of Record.

The petition for the writ alleges facts which, if true, would entitle petitioner to a full appellate review of his conviction by habeas corpus, on the authority of Baggett v. Wainwright.1 Respondent has filed his response to the Order to Show Cause, admitting matters of record concerning the conviction but denying all other salient facts alleged and relied upon by petitioner, thus crystallizing the factual issues as to whether petitioner was wrongfully denied his right of direct appeal.

Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and upon authority of the foregoing cases, the Honorable Robert E. Hensley, a Circuit Judge of the 12th Judicial Circuit of Florida, is appointed a Commissioner to take such testimony and receive such evidence as may be deemed proper or necessary as to petitioner’s allegations and thereafter with all convenient speed report the same, together with his findings and recommendations, to this court.2

LILES, A. C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ„ concur.

1

. (Fla.1969), 229 So.2d 239. *See, also,*Powe v. State (Fla.1968), 216 So.2d 446.

2

. *See*O’Hara v. Wainwright (Fla.App.2d 1970), 233 So.2d 429.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albino NUNEZ-CARRANZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-50134.

D.C. No. CR-00-00619-FMC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Nunez-Carranza’s motion to waive oral argument is granted.

MEMORANDUM **

Albino Nunez-Carranza appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sen*800tence for conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and being found in the United States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Nunez-Carranza’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has moved to withdraw as counsel of record. Nunez-Carranza has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

The only issue identified by counsel was whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Nunez-Carranza’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Counsel correctly rejected this issue because statements made during the plea hearing carry a strong presumption of veracity. *See United States v. Rubalcaba,*811 F.2d 491, 494 (9th Cir.1987). As such, the district court did not abuse its discretion, and Nunez-Carranza’s plea was voluntarily and knowingly made.

Moreover, our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988) indicates the plea agreement was entered knowingly and voluntarily. *See United States v. Aguilar-Muniz,*156 F.3d 974, 976 (9th Cir.1998) (holding waiver of right to appeal is valid if knowing and voluntary). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction, and GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Maria SOLER, Petitioner, v. HARRY M. STEVENS, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 43882.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 25, 1973.

Petition denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J, and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ, concur.
Exhibit 12   SPRINGLEAF FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)    (dollars in thousands)Successor
CompanyPredecessor
CompanyThree Months Ended March 31,20112010Earnings:
Loss before benefit from income taxes$ (83,639)$ (44,860)Interest expense353,552265,828Implicit interest in rents3,4353,708Total earnings$273,348$224,676Fixed charges:
Interest expense$353,552$265,828Implicit interest in rents3,4353,708Total fixed charges$356,987$269,536Ratio of earnings to fixed charges*0.770.83  * Earnings were inadequate to cover total fixed charges by $83.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and $44.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010.    73
#### SOUTHERN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Harry M. CROW, Sr. and Margaret M. Crow, Respondents.

No. 43994.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 11, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 278 So.2d 294.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 256 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 256

  To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
                          Resolution of 2002.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 2021

Ms. Lee of California (for herself, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Massie, 
   Ms. Tlaib, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Trone, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Sherman, Ms. 
Pressley, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Beyer, Ms. Speier, Mr. Lowenthal, 
  Ms. DeGette, Mr. Khanna, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Norton, Mr. Rush, Mrs. 
 Watson Coleman, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Cicilline, 
     Mr. DeFazio, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Jones, Ms. Clark of 
   Massachusetts, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Welch, Mr. 
 Espaillat, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Moulton, 
 and Ms. Spanberger) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                  to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
                          Resolution of 2002.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST 
              IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002.

    The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 
of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7686

MICHAEL T. SCOTT, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KEN KODAMA, Chemist/Analyst,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:13-cv-02279-RDB)

Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael T. Scott, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael T. Scott, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint against 

Ken Kodama. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

Scott v. Kodama, No. 1:13-cv-02279-RDB (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2013). 

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
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lonnie JACOBS.

No. 61074.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 1977.

In re: Lonnie Jacobs applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Jackson.

Application denied; No error in ruling of trial judge.
#### M. Jack BREITBART and Dorothy Breitbart, his wife, Petitioners, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a municipal corporation created and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44284.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 19, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 280 So.2d 18.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the SABINE RIVER AUTHORITY, State of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. M. P. PILCHER et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 2861.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.

Nov. 25, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1969.

Before SAVOY, CULPEPPER and MILLER, JJ.

SAVOY, Judge.

This suit was consolidated for trial and appeal with the companion case of Pilcher v. Paulk et al., 228 So.2d 663, (La.App. 3 Cir. 1969) decided also on this date.

For the reasons assigned in the companion case, the judgment of the district court is affirmed at plaintiff’s costs.

Affirmed.

On Application for Rehearing.

En banc.

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for appellee in the instant matter has called to our attention the fact that the costs of this appeal were taxed against ap-pellee whereas they should have been taxed against the appellants. Counsel is correct.

The judgment of this Court is amended by taxing the costs of this appeal against appellants, and as amended, the rehearing is denied. The right of appellants to apply for further rehearing is reserved.

Rehearing denied.
<PAGE> 21

                                                                  Exhibit 12


               AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                 (Unaudited)




                                                         Nine Months Ended
                                                           September 30,
                                                        2000          1999
                                                      (dollars in thousands)

Earnings:
  Income before provision for income
    taxes                                             $232,957      $251,512
  Interest expense                                     513,917       420,079
  Implicit interest in rents                            11,977        11,258

Total earnings                                        $758,851      $682,849


Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                    $513,917      $420,079
  Implicit interest in rents                            11,977        11,258

Total fixed charges                                   $525,894      $431,337


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        1.44          1.58
#### The ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY and John Stampley v. Levi JONES.

No. 50223.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 5, 1978.

Rehearing Denied May 10, 1978.

Roberts & Easterling, M. M. Roberts, Hattiesburg, for appellants.

Larry 0. Norris, Samuel E. Farris, Hat-tiesburg, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and LEE, BOWLING and COFER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2402 

To transfer administrative jurisdiction of certain Federal lands from the 

Army Corps of Engineers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to take 

such lands into trust for the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2021 

Mr. FORTENBERRY (for himself, Mr. SOTO, Mr. FEENSTRA, and Ms. DAVIDS

of Kansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To transfer administrative jurisdiction of certain Federal 

lands from the Army Corps of Engineers to the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, to take such lands into trust for the 

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Winnebago Land 

5 Transfer Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2402 IH

1 SEC. 2. LAND TO BE TAKEN INTO TRUST. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to all valid existing rights, 

3 all right, title, and interest (including improvements and 

4 appurtenances) of the United States in and to the Federal 

5 lands described in subsection (b), the Federal lands— 

6 (1) are declared to be part of the Winnebago 

7 Reservation created by the Treaty between the 

8 United States and the Winnebago Tribe in 1865; 

9 and 

10 (2) shall be held in trust by the United States 

11 for the benefit of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska 

12 subject to the same terms and conditions as those 

13 lands described in the Treaty with the Winnebago 

14 Tribe, 1865 (14 Stat. 671). 

15 (b) FEDERAL LANDS DESCRIBED.—The Federal 

16 lands described in this subsection are as follows: 

17 (1) That portion of Tract No. 119, the descrip18 tion of which is filed in U.S. District Court for the 

19 Northern District of Iowa (Western Division), Civil 

20 Case No. 70–C–3015–W, executed May 11, 1973, 

21 said tract being situated in Section 8 and the accre22 tion land thereto, the Southwest Quarter of Section 

23 9, the West Half of Section 16, the East Half of 

24 Section 17, Township 86 North, Range 47 West of 

25 the Fifth Principal Meridian, Woodbury County, 

26 Iowa, lying Easterly of the Nebraska/Iowa State 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2402 IH

1 Line and Southerly of the Eastern extension of the 

2 North line of the Winnebago Reservation. 

3 (2) All of Tract 210, in Iowa, the description of 

4 which is filed in a Federal condemnation action in 

5 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 

6 Iowa (Western Division), in Civil Case No. 70–C– 

7 3015–W. 

8 (3) All of Tract 113, in Iowa, the description of 

9 which is filed in a Federal condemnation action in 

10 U.S. District Court for the State of Nebraska, in 

11 Civil Case No. 70–C–03498. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
                                     ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") by Cash Systems, Inc.("Registrant"), I,
Michael D. Rumbolz, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

            1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

            2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.

                                           By:   /s/ Michael D. Rumbolz
                                               ---------------------------------
            Dated: March 31, 2005          Michael D. Rumbolz
                                           Chief Executive Officer