alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James MEISNER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42512.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 26, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 262 So.2d 238.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Order entered October 14, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01416-CR

VICTOR HILL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1357879-L

ORDER

On our own motion, we ORDER the Honorable Carter Thompson, Judge of the Criminal 

District Court No. 5 of Dallas County, Texas, to refer this matter to Senior Judge Pat McDowell 

to make a written order and findings of fact regarding the voluntariness of the statement in 

State’s Exhibit 124 as required by article 38.22 section 6 of the code of criminal procedure. TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.22 § 6. 

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic

transmission to Judge Thompson, Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre, and all counsel of 

record.
We ABATE this appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal will 

be reinstated thirty (30) days from the date of this order or when the Court receives the order and 

findings of the trial court.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### Earl GARRISON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-46.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 22, 1971.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Legal Intern., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Jones v. State of Florida, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 517.
Dear Messrs. Callahan and Robinson:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−3314). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) to process your petition.

 Your petition references the material listed below, however the material was not 

submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 12/7/15. If we do 

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4549.

Sincerely,

/S/

Michael J. Cameron

Program Analyst
JAMES M. CLARK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2622

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Calhoun County.

Allen L. Register, Judge.

Terry P. Roberts, Law Office of Terry P. Roberts, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises two issues related to his conviction and one issue regarding 

his sentencing. We find only the claim related to appellant’s sentencing has merit. 

The State concedes the trial court improperly designated appellant as an habitual 

felony offender, ignoring the jury’s express finding that the State had failed to 
2

prove appellant’s prior convictions.* See Borrell v. State 478 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 1985).

Based upon the State’s concession, we strike the habitual felony offender 

designation and remand for appellant to be resentenced.

WOLF, B.L. THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.

 

* This finding was expressed in a special verdict form related to whether appellant 

violated section 794.0115, Florida Statutes (2013).
#### Cordelia WALLACE, Appellant, v. P. L. DODGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al., Appellees.

No. 77-207.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 7, 1978.

Podhurst, Orseck & Parks and Michael S. Olin, Miami, for appellant.

Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Knight and Thomas F. Martin, Miami, for appellees.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff Cordelia Wallace appeals a final summary judgment in a negligence action in favor of the defendant P. L. Dodge Memorial Hospital and its insurer Appalachian Insurance Company and contends that the entry of such judgment was error because *inter alia*there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the alleged negligence of the defendant hospital in failing to provide adequate attendants to protect the plaintiff as an invitee of the hospital against a violent attack by one of its mental patients. We agree and reverse the judgment appealed from for further proceedings solely as to that issue. No other genuine issue of material fact exists in this case. *Holl v. Talcott,*191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); *North Broward Hospital District v. Adams,*143 So.2d 355, 356 (Fla.2d DCA 1962).
EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Daxor Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Feldschuh,
Vice President of Operations and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

                                                /s/ Stephen Feldschuh
                                                ----------------------
                                                Stephen Feldschuh
                                                Vice President of Operations and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                May 13, 2004
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ John T. MallettJohn T. MallettTreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67634-67635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33658]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-02-000]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

December 19, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 17, 1997, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised No. 
1, the following revised tariff sheets to be effective February 1, 
1998:

Third Revised Sheet No. 137
First Revised Sheet No. 137A
Second Revised Sheet No. 138
Second Revised Sheet No. 139
First Revised Sheet No. 139A
Second Revised Sheet No. 140
First Revised Sheet No. 141
Second Revised Sheet No. 142
First Revised Sheet No. 143
Third Revised Sheet No. 144

    ANR states that it is revising the cashout mechanism set forth in 
its tariff to: (1) Revise the methodology by which prices are 
determined for the purchase and sale of imbalance volumes that are 
cashed-out on its system; and (2) provide for a two-way flow-through of 
gains and losses from the purchase and sale of cashout volumes.
    ANR states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motion or protests must be

[[Page 67635]]

filed as provided in Section 154.210 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. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33658 Filed 12-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ignacio GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50223.

D.C. No. CR-99-03291-NAJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 20001.

Decided Aug. 16, 2002.

Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

A. *Constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 960*

Gonzalez claims that 21 U.S.C. § 960 is unconstitutional because it permits a judge to increase the maximum penalties for drug violations without requiring that the factors which cause such increases, drug type and quantity, be alleged in the indictment and determined beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury as required under *Apprendi v. New*Jersey.3 We determined that § 960 is constitutional in *United States v. Mendoza-Paz.**4***Thus, Gonzalez’s argument fails.

B. *Constitutionality of Waiver in Proposed Plea Agreement*

The proposed plea agreement required Gonzalez to waive his rights to impeachment and affirmative defense information that the Government would be required to provide if the case proceeded to trial. Gonzalez argues that the plea agreement was unconstitutional because of this waiver. The Supreme Court recently decided that the Constitution does not require the *827Government to disclose material impeachment evidence or affirmative defense information prior to entering into a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.5 Thus, plea agreements containing such a waiver are valid.

AFFIRMED.

2

. 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

3

. *See*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

4

. 286 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.2002).

5

. *United. States v. Ruiz,*No. 01-595, slip op. at 9 (U.S. June 24, 2002).
#### Dale LASSITER et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a municipal corporation, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 70-80.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 15, 1970.

K. Neil Glassford, Miami, for appellants.

Joseph Wanick, City Atty., and Ira M. Elegant, Asst. City Atty., for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were the plaintiffs in an action for declaratory judgment. The appeal is from a summary final judgment which dismissed appellant’s suit with prejudice, therefore the actual question presented is whether under the undisputed facts appearing in the record, the appellants were entitled to a declaratory judgment.

The appellants are nine police officers of the City of Miami Beach. In effect they ask the court to give them an advisory opinion as to legal effect of a city ordinance which abolished the civil service classification of Police Officer II. It is clear that none of these appellants were members of that classification. All members of the former Police Officer II classification were designated Police Sergeants without basic change in pay or civil service *270rights. Appellants, as plaintiffs simply state:

> “The plaintiffs would further show that they are in grave doubt as to the actions of the Personnel Board and as to the intent and legal effect of said acts and are further in doubt as to the legality and effect of Ordinance No. 1751 of the City of Miami Beach.”

The pleadings, admissions on file, together with the affidavits show that the appellees conclusively established that there was no issue as to the legality of the ordinance. Appellants are not entitled to an advisory opinion from the court as to intent or legal effect of the ordinance in the absence of doubt as to the existence or non-existence of some legal right, status, immunity, power or prestige. See Ready v. Safeway Rock Co., Fla.1946, 157 Fla. 27, 24 So.2d 808; Lyles v. Dade County, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 466.

Affirmed.
#### Amzy JACKSON, Jr. v. Dr. John DOE et al.

No. 54333.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1974.

In re: Amzy Jackson, Jr. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 286 So.2d 751.

It i,s ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff' and defendant be notified.
#### Katherine Stuart JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Billy Jack JOHNSON, Appellee.

No. 77-1394.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 19, 1977.

*837Julian D. Clarkson, of Holland & Knight, Fort Myers, and C. A. Boswell, Bartow, for appellant.

Joseph G. Bywater, of Pittman & Bywa-ter, Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The principal point on appeal is whether a court may determine conditions of parental visitation based upon a written psychiatric report without affording the adversely affected parent the right of cross-examination. We think not. *Cf. Hosking v. Hosking,*318 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); *McGuire v. McGuire,*140 So.2d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).

Reversed.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and McNULTY and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment -1-

Decided and Entered: July 7, 2016 D-33-16

In the Matter of ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468-a.
COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STANDARDS, ON MOTION Petitioner; RAJENDRANATH JANKI AKALU, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4032272)
Calendar Date: March 28, 2016 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose, Lynch and Mulvey, JJ.

Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany, for petitioner. Rajendranath Janki Akalu, Ajax, Canada, respondent pro se.

Per Curiam. Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 2002, was suspended by this Court's order dated January 30, 2014 for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (113 AD3d 1020 [2014]). Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that he has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (see 22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object-2- D-33-16

to respondent's application. Respondent's application is granted and he is ordered reinstated, effective immediately. Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose, Lynch and Mulvey, JJ. concur.

ORDERED that respondent's application is granted; and it is further ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
#### Fausta Cecile DEVALL v. Claude Pierson DEVALL.

No. 62069.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 12, 1978.

Writ Recalled July 14, 1978.

See 360 So.2d 522.

In re: Claude Pierson Devall applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of *950Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Allen. 357 So.2d 899.

Granted. It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
1676 International Drive, McLean, VA 22102 ( 253 ) 282

- 2923 MRamsey767 @aol.com January 25 , 2013

VIA HAND DELIVERY

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

– 140 200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590

Re: E xemption Request 14 C.F.R. Part 125 , Docket No.: FAA

- 2012

- 0579

D ear Sir :

On May 24, 2012, Jet Stream Aviation, LLC, d/b/a Jetstream Aviation (“Jetstream”) petitioned pursuant to Section 11.61 (b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs ") for an exemption from FAR Part 125

, to the extent necessary to list the

Bombardier Inc. CL

- 600

- 2B16 a ircraft, serial number 58 64, FAA Registration Number N605BB (“Challenger”) on the Operations Specifications of Jetstream’s existing Operating Certificate Number 7JAB821M, dated March 9, 2011

.

The sole purpose of this petition is to perm it Jetstream to operate the Challenger under Part 125’s higher level of safety than under Part 91

. To remove any doubt in this regard, Jetstream emphasizes the following:

1. As stated in the original petition

, i f this request is approved, Jetstream would op erate the Challenger under Part 125 in its entirety and not seek any deviation from any provision of Part 125.

2. Jetstream assures the FAA that this request is made in full recognition that all aircraft operated under its Operating Certificate will be used only for private carriage and that no holding out to the public will occur.

3. Jetstream further commits to the FAA that

, if this request were granted, the Challenger would be used for no more than a single private carriage

client.

In sum, Jetstream emphasi zes that it is seeking to voluntarily comply with a higher standard of safety than is required and simply requests the permission of the FAA

to do so.1676 International Drive, McLean, VA 22102 ( 253 ) 282

- 2923 MRamsey767 @aol.com Please do not hesi tate to contact me should you have any questions or need additional information rega rding this request

.

Sincerely,

Mark Ramsey Director of Operations

Jetstream Aviation
#### Jim FAIR, individually and as Supervisor of Elections, Petitioner, v. Bessie LO SCALZO, Connie Leto, Cynthia Daniels, Pat alias Margaret J. Fredrick and Dalia Gomez, Respondents.

No. 40636.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 8, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 240 So.2d 894.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Ex 10b15 2013 10-K






EXHIBIT 10(b)15


BASE SALARIES OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


ALABAMA POWER COMPANY


The following are the annual base salaries, effective March 1, 2014, of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Alabama Power Company and certain other executive officers of Alabama Power Company who served during 2013.


	
		
	Charles D. McCrary
President and Chief Executive Officer
	$803,247

	Philip C. Raymond
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, 
and Treasurer
	$351,664

	Theodore J. McCullough 
Senior Vice President
	$288,400

	Zeke W. Smith 
Executive Vice President
	$351,909

	Steven R. Spencer 
Executive Vice President
	$481,115
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ GREGORY DOUGLAS SMITH, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs , Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2022

- 2213

______________________Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 21

- 1244, Judge William S. Greenberg.

-------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN CLARK,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs , Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2022

- 2225

______________________ Case: 22-2212 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 08/03/2023SMITH v. MCDONOUGH 2

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 21

- 1124, Judge Grant Jaquith,Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., and Judge William S. Greenberg.

--------------------------------------------------
ROGER WARREN BEAUDOIN, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of V eterans Affairs , Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2022

- 2212

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 21

- 2078, Judge Michael P. Allen.

______________________
ON MOTION

______________________
O R D E R
Upon consideration of Roger Warren Beaudoin and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’ joint motion to dismiss Appeal No. 2022

- 221 2 under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion is granted. Appeal No. 2022

- 221 2 is dismissed. The revised caption and official short caption for the remaining two consolidated appeals are reflected in this order

. Case: 22-2212 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 08/03/2023SMITH v. MCDONOUGH 3

(2) Each side to bear its own costs as to Appeal No. 2022

- 221 2. (3) The Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of this order to the merits panel assigned to this case.

August 3, 2023 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (AS TO NO. 2022

- 221 2 ONLY): A ugust 3, 2023 Case: 22-2212 Document: 48 Page: 3 Filed: 08/03/2023