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

No. 42620.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 3, 1973.

Order of Transfer.

It appearing to the Court that the issues involved in the appeal in the above cause are matters within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District of Florida, therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Florida Appellate Rules, it is ordered that said cause be transferred to said District Court for consideration and determination after five (5) days from this date unless, in the meantime, attorneys of record for the parties, or any of them shall bring to the attention of the Court that the cause is one which should he heard and determined by this Court. Unless such cause is shown by writing filed in this Court within the time stated, the Clerk shall complete the transfer in accord with the above directive without further order.
Exhibit 12   AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)    Three Months EndedNine Months EndedSeptember 30,September 30,(dollars in thousands)2008200720082007Earnings:
(Loss) income before (credit) provision for income
taxes$(583,262)$  70,961$(698,571)$   138,647Interest expense308,338315,990925,633936,049Implicit interest in rents6,0585,58019,90416,506Total earnings$(268,866)$392,531$ 246,966$1,091,202Fixed charges:
Interest expense$ 308,338$315,990$ 925,633$   936,049Implicit interest in rents6,0585,58019,90416,506Total fixed charges$ 314,396$321,570$ 945,537$   952,555Ratio of earnings to fixed charges*(0.86)1.220.261.15  * Earnings were inadequate to cover total fixed charges by $583.3 million and $698.6 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008.    57
#### Joe Nathan HALL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43991.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 12, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 278 So.2d 356.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65766-65767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32700]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-109; RM-9018]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Eckley, CO

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel 237C1 to Eckley, Colorado, as 
that community's first local aural

[[Page 65767]]

transmission service, in response to a petition for rule making filed 
by KRDZ Broadcasters, Inc.. See 62 FR 17773, April 11, 1997. 
Coordinates used for Channel 237C1 at Eckley, Colorado, are 40-06-48 
and 102-29-18. With this action, the proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective January 20, 1998. A filing window for Channel 237C1 at 
Eckley, Colorado, will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue 
of opening a filing window for this channel will be addressed by the 
Commission in a subsequent Order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180. Questions related to the window application filing process 
should be addressed to the Audio Services Division, (202) 418-2700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 97-109, adopted November 5, 1997, and 
released December 5, 1997. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.
    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 73 reads as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Colorado, is 
amended by adding Eckley, Channel 237C1.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-32700 Filed 12-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7016 

To waive the 60-day rule in case of rollover of otherwise required minimum 

distributions in 2020. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2020 

Mr. MAST introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To waive the 60-day rule in case of rollover of otherwise 

required minimum distributions in 2020. 

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 ‘‘Fairness for Early 

5 Withdrawers Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7016 IH

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF 60-DAY RULE IN CASE OF ROLLOVER OF 

2 OTHERWISE REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTRIBU3 TIONS IN 2020. 

4 (a) QUALIFIED TRUSTS.—Section 402(c)(3) of the 

5 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at 

6 the end the following new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(D) EXCEPTION FOR ROLLOVER OF OTH8 ERWISE REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTRIBUTIONS IN

9 2020.—In the case of an eligible rollover dis10 tribution described in the second sentence of 

11 paragraph (4), subparagraph (A) shall not 

12 apply to any transfer of such distribution made 

13 before December 1, 2020.’’. 

14 (b) INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS.—Section 

15 408(d)(3) of such Code is amended by adding at the end 

16 the following new subparagraph: 

17 ‘‘(J) WAIVER OF 60-DAY RULE AND ONCE

18 PER-YEAR LIMITATION FOR CERTAIN 2020 ROLL19 OVERS.—In the case of a distribution during 

20 2020 to which, under subparagraph (E), this 

21 paragraph would not have applied had the min22 imum distribution requirements of section 

23 401(a)(9) applied during such years, the 60-day 

24 requirement under subparagraph (A) and the 

25 limitation under subparagraph (B) shall not 

26 apply to such distribution to the extent the 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7016 IH

1 amount is paid into an individual retirement ac2 count, individual retirement annuity (other than 

3 an endowment contract), or eligible retirement 

4 plan (as defined in subparagraph (A)) as other5 wise required under such subparagraph before 

6 December 1, 2020.’’. 

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

9 December 31, 2019. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL PATENTS, INC., and Exxon Mobil Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James E. ROGAN, Director, Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1339.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 31, 2002.

Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The Director of the Patent and Trademark Office moves to dismiss ExxonMobil *472Chemical Patents, Inc. et al.’s appeal because it is from a nonfinal order. Exxon opposes.

On reexamination, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) canceled the claims of Exxon’s patent. Exxon filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145. Exxon alleged that the Board improperly based its rejection of the patent solely on prior art which was before the PTO examiner during the original examination of the application, and that the reexamination should have been terminated because the cited prior art did not raise a substantial new

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary’s motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34230]



[[Page 114]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

agency holding the meeting: National Labor Relations Board.

time and date: 4:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 17, 1997.

place: Board Conference Room, Eleventh Floor, 1099 Fourteenth St., 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570.

status: Closed to public observation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 
552b(c)(2) (internal personnel rules and practices); and (9)(B) 
(disclosure would significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed 
Agency action . . .).

matters to be considered: Budget.

contact person for more information: John J. Toner, Executive 
Secretary, Washington, D.C. 20570, Telephone: (202) 273-1940.

    Dated, Washington, D.C., December 29, 1997.

    By direction of the Board:
John J. Toner,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-34230 Filed 12-30-97; 2:56 pm]
BILLING CODE 7545-01-M
#### Robert A. deLANA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-280.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 10, 1970.

Robert A. deLana, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Rodney Dur-rance, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ON MOTION TO QUASH

PER CURIAM.

The State has filed a motion to quash this appeal whereby appellant seeks review of a lower court order denying appellant’s Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A. motion to vacate judgment and sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to a charge of second degree murder.

Appellee’s motion to quash is predicated upon the contention that the grounds asserted for relief by appellant in the present motion to vacate, that is, that he was afforded ineffective assistance by his court-appointed counsel and the claim that his guilty plea was coerced and involuntary, had been interposed by appellant and denied in an earlier motion to vacate, thus rendering the present proceeding successive and therefore interdicted by the language of Rule 1.850.

Our examination of the record herein and exhibits attached to appellee’s motion *439substantiate the successive nature of the instant motion to vacate. In view of these circumstances, we hold that the State’s motion to quash is controlled by the principles stated by this court in Blunt v. State, 203 So.2d 49, and Mitchell v. State, 203 So.2d 676, holding that a motion to vacate which asserts grounds for relief which were decided adversely to the defendant in a prior motion may not be considered by the courts in a subsequent proceeding.

Accordingly, the motion to quash is granted on authority of the cases cited above.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
    hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
    on Form S-3 (File No. 333-155811) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-99764, 33-41474,
    333-50298, 333-111513, 333-135831, 333-135832, 333-152095) of Transatlantic
    Holdings, Inc. of our report dated February 27, 2009 relating to the financial
    statements, financial statement schedules and the effectiveness of internal
    control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPricewaterhouseCoopers LLPNew York, New YorkFebruary 27, 2009



---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT THOM AS W . S. RIC HEY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. DOUGLAS THAUT, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-35254 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-05680-R B L M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B . Le ighton, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2013 * * B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, TASHIM A, a nd WA RDLAW , C irc uit Judge s. W a shington sta

te prisone r Thom a s W .S. R ic he y a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing without pre judic e his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion for fa ilure to e xha

u st a dm inistra

tive re m e die s a s re quire d by the Prison Litiga

tion 

# FIL ED FEB 19 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).R e form

Ac t, 42 U.S.C . § 1997e (a ). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo thedistric t c ourt’ s dismissa l for fa ilure to e xha ust a nd for c le ar e rror any unde rly ing fa c t

ua l findings. Sapp v . K

imbre ll , 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th C ir. 2010). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Ric h e y ’ s a c tion without pre judic e be c a use R ic he y

fa ile d to e xha

ust his adm i nistra

tive re m e die s. Se eW

oodford v . N go , 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006) (re quiring proper a nd tim e ly e xha ustion of prisone

r c la im s). The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding tha

t R ic he y wa s re quire d to a ppe a l the non-grie va

bility de te rm ination to the grie va nc e progra

m m ana g e r and fa ile d to do so. C

f. Sapp , 623 F.3d a

t 822-23 (e x ha

ustion is not re quire d whe re a dm inistra

tive re m e die s a

re re nde re d “ e ffe c tive ly

una v a ila ble ” ). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 3 5 2 5 4 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kenneth J. FROWNER, also known as Ken Dog, Appellant.

No. 02-1637.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 7, 2002.

Filed Aug. 23, 2002.

Before BOWMAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

*54PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Frowner pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2113(a) and (d). In accordance with Frowner’s plea agreement, the district court1 sentenced him to 160 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. The court also ordered him to pay $145,632.16 in restitution. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in finding that Frowner was a career offender. In his pro se supplemental brief, Frowner argues that the career-offender enhancement violated *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and that the district court plainly erred in not addressing each of his objections to the presentence report (PSR).

The district court did not err in imposing the 160-month sentence to which Frowner had agreed. *See United States v. Nguyen,*46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995). Moreover, (1) Frowner did not object to the paragraphs of the PSR describing the prior robbery and drug offenses that made the career-offender enhancement applicable, *see*U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1, 4B1.2 comment. (n.l); *United States v. Montanye,*996 F.2d 190, 192-93 (8th Cir.1993) (en banc); (2) *Apprendi*does not apply because Frowner was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum of 25 years, *see*18 U.S.C. § 2113(d); *United States v. Miller,*295 F.3d 824, 827-28 (8th Cir.2002); and (3) any failure of the district court to address each of Frowner’s objections was harmless, *see*Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a). Following our independent review, *see Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivo-lous issues.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The HONORABLE ROBERT W. PRATT, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
#### James L. GAINEY, Petitioner, v. O’KEEFE ASPHALT PAVEMENTS, INC., Travelers Insurance Company and the Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 44124.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 12, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATE
OF CROFF ENTERPRISES, INC.


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 1350


OF
CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE





I, Gregory R. Woodhill, the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Croff Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company"), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 that, to my
knowledge:





(1)      the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.






Dated: August 8,
      2008
            /s/  GREGORY
      R.
      WOODHILLGregory R. Woodhill,
      President andChief Financial
      Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 10, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40136

Summary Calendar

MELHEM NAJIB IBRAHIM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-cv-00139

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff Ibrahim, a Lebanese citizen and lawful permanent

resident of the United States since 1977, filed a naturalization

application (“N-400) on May 5, 2004. After more than 120 days had

passed without a determination on his N-400, Ibrahim, pursuant to

8 U.S.C. § 1447, applied to the United States District Court in the

district of his residence for a hearing on the matter. At a bench

trial addressing the matter, the district judge denied Ibrahim’s

application based on his failure to meet both the residency
No. 06-40136

-2-

requirements and good moral character requirement, both of which

are necessary for naturalization. 

Naturalization is not a natural right but a privilege. Taylor

v. United States, 231 F.2d 856, 858 (5th Cir. 1956). The burden to

prove that all of the statutory qualifications entitling one to

this privilege rests with the applicant and all doubt is resolved

in favor of the Government. Id. at 858. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a),

an applicant must show that he meets both the good moral character

requirement and the residency requirements.

Because Ibrahim has failed to show that he meets the good

moral character requirement, we need not reach the residency

requirements. 8 U.S.C. § 1427(e) provides that the inquiry into

good moral character is not limited solely to the five years

preceding the filing of the naturalization application.

Additionally, 8 U.S.C. 1101(f) provides, “For purposes of this

chapter, no person shall be regarded as, or found to be, a person

of good moral character who, during the period for which good moral

character is required to be established, is, or was...(6) one who

has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits

under this chapter.” The record indicates that Ibrahim was

arrested four times and fled the United States twice in order to

avoid prosecution. Furthermore, there are numerous instances

within the record of Ibrahim’s false testimony on his N-400 and at

the bench trial offered in an attempt to secure his status as a

naturalized citizen of the United States. Therefore, we find error
No. 06-40136

-3-

neither in the district court’s determination that Ibrahim was not

a person of good moral character and nor its ruling that he should

not become a naturalized citizen. 

We AFFIRM.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 1, 2015

s0624p 

# Order

Clerk July 1, 2015

150202

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150202

COA: 313121

Washtenaw CC: 11

- 001541

- FC

KYLE KEITH CLARK,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MC R 7.302(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of

Appeals, we VACATE the sentence of the Washtenaw Circuit Court, and we REMAND

this case to the trial court for resentencing. Had Offense Variable (OV) 3, MCL 777.33,

not been scored, the correct guidelines range was 84 to 140 months, rather than the range

of 87 to 145 months on which the defendant’s sentence was based. Therefore, the

defendant is entitled to relief under the rationale of People v Franc isco , 474 Mich 82

(2006). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

**DPL Inc.**

** **

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Theundersigned officers of DPL Inc. (the “Issuer”) hereby certifies pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Issuer’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2008, which this certificate accompanies,fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained thereinfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Issuers as of the dates and for the periods expressedtherein.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, has been provided to the Issuer and will beretained by the Issuers and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

Signed:

 

 
| /s/ Paul M. Barbas                     |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Paul M. Barbas                         |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

Date:July 23, 2008

 

Theforegoing certificate is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350and is not being filed as part of the Issuer’s Annual Report or as a separatedisclosure document.

 

----