alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Paul Z. FLETCHER et al., Petitioners, v. LAGUNA VISTA CORPORATION, Respondent.

No. 43779.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 25, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 275 So.2d 579.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ, concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33813]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. Geological Survey


Technology Transfer Act of 1986

AGENCY: United States Geological Survey, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed cooperative research and development 
agreement (CRADA) negotiations.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is contemplating 
entering into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) 
with GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION to evaluate potential reproductive 
effects of papermill effluents in largemouth bass.

INQUIRIES: If any other parties are interested in similar activities 
with the USGS, please contact: Timothy S. Gross, PhD, USGS-BRD Florida 
Caribbean Science Center, 7920 NW 71st St, Gainesville, FL, 32563.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is to meet the USGS requirement 
stipulated in the Survey Manual.

    Dated: December 17, 1997.
Don W. Minnich,
Acting Chief Biologist.
[FR Doc. 97-33813 Filed 12-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-31-M
255 La. 52

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Benjamin HAYNES.

No. 49693.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 15, 1969.

Thomas S. Gill, Jr., Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., William P. Schuler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sargent Pitcher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Frank J. Gremil-lion, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

HAMITER, Justice.

On February 21, 1967 Benjamin Haynes, the defendant herein, entered a plea of guilty to a charge of manslaughter. Thereafter, he was sentenced to ten years at hard labor in the State Penitentiary.

The sentence of the accused was suspended, however, and he was placed on probation under the supervision of the Department of Institutions for five years and on unsupervised probation for five years. The suspension was conditioned upon the special provisions of Article 895 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, his receiving psychiatric care when needed, and his not frequenting barrooms.

On January 15, 1969 the state moved to revoke the suspension of the sentence for alleged violations of some of the mentioned conditions. And following a hearing on the motion the court ordered that the suspension be revoked and the sentence made executory.

The defendant is appealing from such ruling.

No motion to dismiss the appeal has been filed in this court. However, in State v. Bruno, 253 La. 669, 219 So.2d 490, which involved an identical situation, we observed: “It has been called to our attention that an appeal will not lie to this court from a ruling of a trial judge on a motion to revoke a sentence previously suspended by it, that such ruling can only be reviewed by this court under its supervisory jurisdiction. See Articles 871, 893, 912, Code of Criminal Procedure.

“Although this issue was neither urged in any pleadings nor in argument, the appeal is ex proprio motu dismissed.”

Accordingly, the appeal taken herein is dismissed ex proprio motu.
#### Belle ROSE, Appellant, v. Mack ROSE and Julius Rose, Appellees.

No. 42696.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 11, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33484]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 97N-0264]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB 
Approval

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Information Required in a 
Premarket Notification Submission (21 CFR 807.87, 807.92, and 807.93) 
(OMB Control Number 0910-0281--Reinstatement)'' has been approved by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (the PRA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret R. Schlosburg, Office of 
Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of July 16, 1997 (62 
FR 38098), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 
section 3507 of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507). An agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB 
control number 0910-0281. The approval expires on September 30, 2000.

    Dated: December 16, 1997.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 97-33484 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
```
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 705 

To authorize the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration 

to utilize the security service fee to pay Transportation Security officer 

salaries during a lapse in appropriations for the Transportation Security 

Administration, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 22, 2019 

Mr. KATKO (for himself, Mr. BRINDISI, Mr. VAN DREW, Ms. STEFANIK, and 

Mr. STIVERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To authorize the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration to utilize the security service fee 

to pay Transportation Security officer salaries during 

a lapse in appropriations for the Transportation Security 

Administration, 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 ‘‘Pay Our TSA Screen5 ers Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 705 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF SECURITY SERVICE FEE TO PAY SALARIES 

2 OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY OFFICERS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi4 sion of law, including section 44940 of title 49, United 

5 States Code, during any lapse in appropriations with re6 spect to the Transportation Security Administration, the 

7 Administrator of the Transportation Security Administra8 tion is authorized to utilize amounts payable to the Ad9 ministrator pursuant to the security service fee under such 

10 section to pay Transportation Security officer salaries to 

11 ensure effective continuity of security operations at air12 ports. 

13 (b) NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS.—If the Adminis14 trator of the Transportation Security Administration exer15 cises the authority provided under subsection (a), the Ad16 ministrator shall notify the Committee on Homeland Secu17 rity and the Committee on Appropriations of the House 

18 of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 

19 Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Appro20 priations of the Senate of such exercise. 

21 (c) TERMINATION.—The authority provided under 

22 subsection (a) terminates, with respect to any lapse in ap23 propriations with respect to the Transportation Security 

24 Administration, on the date of the enactment of any Act 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 705 IH

1 making appropriations for the Transportation Security 

2 Administration. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Willie J. WILLIAMS, Respondent.

No. 42709.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 6, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 264 So.2d 106.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, J., dissents.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33240]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 938]


Approval of Manufacturing Activity Within Foreign-Trade Zone 38, 
Spartanburg, South Carolina; Zeuna Starker USA, Inc. (Automotive 
Exhaust Systems)

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, Sec. 400.28(a)(2) of the Board's regulations, requires 
approval of the Board prior to commencement of new manufacturing/
processing activity within existing zone facilities;
    Whereas, the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 
38, has requested authority under Sec. 400.28(a)(2) of the Board's 
regulations on behalf of Zeuna Starker USA, Inc., to manufacture 
automotive exhaust systems under zone procedures within FTZ 38--Site 4, 
Spartanburg, South Carolina (filed 2-18-97; FTZ Doc. 10-97, 62 FR 
10022, 3-5-97);
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendation of the 
examiner's report, including a recommended restriction on stainless 
steel pipe, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the 
Board's regulations are satisfied and that the proposal is in the 
public interest, subject to restriction;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby approves the request subject to 
the Act and the Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28, and further 
subject to a restriction requiring that privileged foreign status (19 
CFR 146.41) must be elected on all foreign origin stainless steel pipe 
admitted to FTZ 38 for the Zeuna Starker USA, Inc., activity, as 
indicated in the application.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of December 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33240 Filed 12-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-25-P
#### Jean HOEFLER et al., Appellants, v. Charles Michael BUTLER et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1460.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 26, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED EARNINGS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                3,975 
<SECURITIES>                         23,601 
<RECEIVABLES>                        66,220 
<ALLOWANCES>                         (1,110)
<INVENTORY>                          49,782 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    151,622 
<PP&E>                              111,457 
<DEPRECIATION>                      (51,536)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      258,898 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                38,085 
<BONDS>                                   0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0 
<PREFERRED>                               0 
<COMMON>                                166 
<OTHER-SE>                          207,026 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        258,898 
<SALES>                             192,900 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    192,900 
<CGS>                                67,138 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        67,138 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        229 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       27 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      20,819 
<INCOME-TAX>                          6,286 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  14,533 
<DISCONTINUED>                            0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0 
<CHANGES>                                 0 
<NET-INCOME>                         14,533 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.95 
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.93 
        


</TABLE>
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43262

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DANIEL ALLEN BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 331

Filed: January 20, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. George A. Southworth, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Daniel Allen Brown pled guilty to burglary. Idaho Code § 18-1401. The district court 

sentenced Brown to a unified term of five years with one and one-half years determinate, 

suspended the sentence, and placed Brown on probation for three years. Within a few months of 

sentencing, Brown incurred additional criminal charges and Brown was required to serve 

discretionary jail time on two occasions. Subsequently, Brown admitted to violating the terms of 

the probation, and the district court revoked probation and then reinstated Brown on probation 

for a period of three years. Several months later Brown again was required to serve discretionary 

jail time. Subsequently, Brown admitted to violating some of the terms of his probation and the 

district court again revoked his probation and reinstated his probation for eighteen months. A 
2

few days later Brown was again ordered to serve discretionary jail time and Brown was charged 

with a third probation violation. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court found 

Brown in violation of his probation, revoked probation, ordered execution of Brown’s underlying 

sentence, and retained jurisdiction. Following a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court 

relinquished jurisdiction and ordered Brown’s sentence executed without reduction. Brown

asserts that the district court abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction.

We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to 

relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district 

court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102 

Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-

97 (Ct. App. 1990). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the 

information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. We hold that Brown

has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.

The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and ordering Brown’s underlying

sentence executed is affirmed.
#### CARR v.STEWART.

No. 38434.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000862023
<NAME>                        ENEX 88-89 INCOME & RETIREMENT FUND-SERIES 3, L.P.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         12255
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  16056
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               28495
<PP&E>                                         1341371
<DEPRECIATION>                                 982725
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 387141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5883
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     381258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   387141
<SALES>                                        155598
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               155598
<CGS>                                          70782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  70782
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               27102
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   57714
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
#### Fate Dempsey JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-93.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 4, 1970.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and Edwin T. Mulock, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Warren H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 446.

LILES, A. C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32864]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Notice of Proposed Changes to the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service's Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG)

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in North Dakota, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed changes in Section IV of 
FOTG in North Dakota for review and comment.

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

SUMMARY: It is the intention of NRCS in North Dakota to issue a series 
of new and revised conservation practice standards in Section IV of the 
FOTG. These new standards include Cross Wind Stripcropping (589B); 
Residue Management, No-till and Strip Till (329A); Prescribed Grazing 
(528A); and Wildlife Watering Facility (648).
    The revised standards are Field Border (386) and Riparian Forest 
Buffer (391A).

DATES: Comments will be received on or before January 30, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquire in writing to Myron P. 
Senechal, State Resource Conservationist, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS), PO Box 1458, Bismarck, ND 58502-1458. 
Copies of these standards will be made available upon written request.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after 
enactment of the law, to NRCS state technical guides used to carry out 
highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law, shall be made 
available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS 
in North Dakota will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. 
Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS of 
North Dakota regarding disposition of those comments and a final 
determination of changes will be made.

    Dated: December 11, 1997.
Scott Hoag, Jr.,
State Conservationist, Bismarck, North Dakota.
[FR Doc. 97-32864 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
H. R. 228 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2141 Ferry 

Street in Anderson, California, as the ‘‘Norma Comnick Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. NORMA COMNICK POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 2141 Ferry Street in Anderson, California, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Norma Comnick Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Norma Comnick Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Charles F. HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-317.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 29, 1973.

*191James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Elliott C. Metcalfe, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

MANN, Chief Judge.

Hall’s appeal from denial of his motion for post-conviction relief asserts that he was convicted of a violation of the crime-against-nature statute, Fla.Stat. § 800.01, F.S.A., prior to its invalidation by Franklin v. State, Fla.1971, 257 So.2d 21, and is now held unlawfully. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that the Florida finding of unconstitutionality results in a federal constitutional claim entitling a state prisoner to habeas corpus. Huffman v. Thompkins, 5th Cir. 1973, 478 F.2d 390; Stone v. Wainwright, 5th Cir. 1973, 478 F.2d 390. Our Supreme Court has, however, stated that *Franklin*is not to be applied retroactively, and we are bound by that authority. 257 So.2d at 24. See also Judge McNulty’s opinion for this court in Morris v. State, Fla.App.2d 1972, 261 So.2d 563.

Affirmed.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Alvin MALLERY, Jr. v. Frank BLACKBURN, in his Capacity as Warden, etc.

No. 62542.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1978.

In re: Alvin Mallery, Jr., applying for writ of certiorari and for supervisory and/or remedial writs. Parish of Orleans.

Writ granted.

The petition of the relator — in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Alvin V. Oser, Judge of the Criminal District, Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 17th day of July, 1978, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show .cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this court, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.