alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DEC 07, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-12043

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 01-01547-CV-ASG

JULIO C. GOMEZ, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

versus 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(December 7, 2007)

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Julio Gomez appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
2

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence based on his claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. Gomez contends that his complaints about the performance

of his court-appointed attorney, Mr. Julio Gutierrez, Esq., and Gomez’s requests

for substitute counsel created a conflict of interests for Gutierrez that prevented

Gutierrez from adequately representing him. 

When reviewing the district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion, we review

questions of law de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Lynn v. United

States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004). A defendant attempting to show a

conflict of interest resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel “must show first,

that his attorney had an actual conflict of interest, and second, that the conflict

adversely affected counsel’s performance.” Pegg v. United States, 253 F.3d 1274,

1277 (11th Cir. 2001) (emphasis omitted). The conflict cannot be merely possible,

speculative, or hypothetical. Reynolds v. Chapman, 253 F.3d 1337, 1342-43 (11th

Cir. 2001). We will not find an actual conflict of interest unless a petitioner “can

point to specific instances in the record to suggest an actual conflict or impairment

of [his] interests.” Id. at 1343 (citation omitted). 

Several evidentiary hearings were held on this matter and based on the

record, we find no reversible error. We find meritless Gomez’s second argument

that the district court improperly relied on two Second Circuit cases as binding
3

authority.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 28, 2011, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules of Colonial Properties Trust and subsidiaries as of and for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the effectiveness of Colonial Properties Trust's internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Colonial Properties Trust for the year ended December 31, 2010, and to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration Statement .





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP





Birmingham, Alabama


May 6, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

PATRICIA GRIMES, as the next best 

friend and Personal Representative of the 

Estate of Karl Grimes, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al. 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) Civil Case No. 08-2024 (RJL) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MEMORANDUM ~ ORDER 

(April ft, 2012) 

On March 2, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

remanded this action for the Court to "consider the effect of the 2010 amendments to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and 'state on the record the reasons for granting or 

denying [the summary jUdgment] motion.'" Grimes v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 11-7053 

(D.C. Cir. Mar. 2, 2012) (per curiam) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). Therefore, this 

Court directs the parties to submit briefs addressing "the effect[ on this case, if any,] of 

the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56," as well as, "the interaction 

of amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) and the accompanying 2010 Advisory 

Committee Note, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, and Local Rule 7(b )." Id. 
It is hereby 

ORDERED that plaintiffs opening brief is due May 29,2012; and it is further 

ORDERED that defendants' brief is due June 28, 2012; and it is further 

ORDERED that plaintiffs reply brief is due July 13,2012. 

SO ORDERED. 

2
EXHIBIT 10 (ll)



<PAGE>


                        AMENDMENT TO INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
                         (Dated as of November 5, 1997)

         This  Amendment to Indemnity  Agreement is dated as of November 5, 1997
and  entered  into  between  Data  General   Corporation   (the  "Company")  and
_____________________________ (the "Indemnitee").

         Reference    is    made    to   that    Indemnity    Agreement    dated
______________________ between the Indemnitee and the Company (the "Agreement").

         Whereas the parties, for good and sufficient consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby confirmed, wish to amend the Agreement;

         Now, therefore,  the parties agree that the first sentence of Section 7
of the Agreement shall be, and is hereby amended, to read as follows:

         "Upon written  request by Indemnitee  for  indemnification  pursuant to
         Section  3  or  4  hereof,   the   entitlement  of  the  Indemnitee  to
         indemnification  pursuant  to the  terms  of this  Agreement  shall  be
         determined by the following person or persons who shall be empowered to
         make such determination: (a) the Board of Directors of the Company by a
         majority vote of Disinterested Directors (as hereinafter defined), even
         though less than a quorum;  (b) a committee of Disinterested  Directors
         designated by majority  vote of  Disinterested  Directors,  even though
         less than a quorum; or (c) if there are no Disinterested  Directors, or
         if such Disinterested  Directors so direct, by Independent  Counsel (as
         hereinafter defined) in a written opinion to the Board of Directors,  a
         copy of which shall be delivered to Indemnitee."

Except as hereby amended, the Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties have executed this  Amendment  effective as of
November 5, 1997.

DATA GENERAL CORPORATION

By:      ________________________                    ________________________
         Arthur W. DeMelle                           ________________________
         Senior Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer
1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1977

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Matthew Antione Canady, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 19, 2009

Filed: October 27, 2009

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Canady appeals the 324-month sentence imposed following his guilty

plea to conspiracy to distribute at least fifty grams of cocaine base. On appeal Canady

takes issue with the district court's1

 finding at sentencing that Canady was responsible

for more than 4.5 kilograms of cocaine base.

Several of Canady's co-conspirators testified at Canady's two-day sentencing

hearing. On the first day, the court took testimony with regard to the contested factual
-2-

issues. Eight days later, the court heard arguments, Canady allocuted and the court

pronounced Canady's sentence. In the interim, the district court entered an order with

specific findings, resolving the contested factual issues. Relevant here, the district

court found in this order that Canady was responsible for "well in excess of 4.5

kilograms of crack cocaine."

We have carefully examined the record and find the district court did not clearly

err in making this factual finding. See United States v. Palega, 556 F.3d 709, 716 (8th

Cir.) (reviewing drug quantity findings for clear error and reversing only when

definitively and firmly convinced that a mistake has been made), cert. denied, 2009

W.L. 1981847 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2009); United States v. Boyce, 564 F.3d 911, 915-16 (8th

Cir. 2009) (affirming district court's drug quantity finding which was based upon the

testimony of self-interested co-conspirators). Nor were the district court's specific

findings inadequate for our meaningful review. See United States v. Allmon, 500

F.3d 800, 804-05 (8th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            THE BANKER'S STORE, INC.

                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 The Banker's Store, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Paul Clark, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

                                    By: /s/ Paul D. Clark
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                       Paul D. Clark,
                                       President and CEO
                                      (Principal Executive Officer)

April 14, 2003

                            THE BANKER'S STORE, INC.

                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 The Banker's Store, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Albert Blankenship, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

                                         By: /s/Albert Blankenship
                                             ---------------------
                                             Albert Blankenship
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             (Principal Accounting Officer)

April 14, 2003
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Carol E. GARITY.

No. 53399.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 29, 1973.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Philip Montelepre, Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.

Earl J. Schmitt, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Carol E. Garity, was tried by a judge and found guilty of theft of less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) (La.R. S. 14:67) and sentenced as follows: 1

> “ * * * The Court then sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of $500.00 or to serve six (6) months in the Parish Prison in default of the payment of the fine, plus to pay $28.00 court costs or to serve thirty (30) days in the Parish Prison in default of the payment of costs. * * * ”

In our examination of the pleadings and proceedings below, following the submission of the case to us for decision, we have found *ex proprio motu,*the trial court imposed an illegal sentence requiring remand.

The penalty provision for a violation of La.R.S. 14:67 reads:

> “When the misappropriation or taking amounts to less than a value of one hundred dollars, the offender shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both. * * * ”

By imposing a total fine of $528.00 upon defendant and imprisonment, which, in default of payment totaled approximately six months and thirty days, the trial judge exceeded the penalty allowed.2

For the reasons assigned it is ordered the sentence be set aside and the case remanded to the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Section *“C"*for re-sentencing in conformity with the law.

1

. As recorded in the minutes.

2

. See also La.C.Cr.P. Art. 884 which states in its pertinent part: “ * * * where the maximum prison sentence which may be imposed as a penalty for a misdemeanor is six months or less, the total period of imprisonment upon conviction of the offense, including imprisonment for default in payment of a fine or costs, shall not exceed six months for that offense.”
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7259 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.7259

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
    To allow acceleration certificates awarded under the Patents for 
                  Humanity Program to be transferable.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Patents for Humanity Program 
Improvement Act''.
SEC. 2. TRANSFERABILITY OF ACCELERATION CERTIFICATES.
    (a) In General.--A holder of an acceleration certificate issued 
pursuant to the Patents for Humanity Program (established in the notice 
entitled ``Humanitarian Awards Pilot Program'', published at 77 Fed. 
Reg. 6544 (February 8, 2012)), or any successor thereto, of the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office, may transfer (including by sale) 
the entitlement to such acceleration certificate to another person.
    (b) Requirement.--An acceleration certificate transferred under 
subsection (a) shall be subject to any other applicable limitations 
under the notice entitled ``Humanitarian Awards Pilot Program'', 
published at 77 Fed. Reg. 6544 (February 8, 2012), or any successor 
thereto.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3707]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 020797D]


Marine Mammals; Permit No. 873 (P773#63)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Scientific research permit amendment.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a request for amendment of 
scientific research permit no. 873 submitted by the Southwest Fisheries 
Science Center, NMFS, P.O. Box 271, La Jolla, CA 92038-0271, has been 
granted.

ADDRESSES: The amendment and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
    1315 East-West Highway, Suite 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/
713-2289); and
    Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean 
Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802, (310/980-4016).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 9, 1996, notice was published in 
the Federal Register (61 FR 64857) that an amendment of permit no. 873, 
issued July 28, 1993 (58 FR 34038), had been requested by the above-
named organization. The requested amendment has been granted under the 
authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the provisions of Sec. 216.39 of the Regulations 
Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), and the provisions of Sec. 222.25 of the Regulations Governing 
the Taking, Importing, and Exporting of Endangered Fish and Wildlife 
(50 CFR part 222.23).
    Permit no. 873 authorized the permit holder to biopsy several 
species of cetaceans off the Pacific, Southern, and Indian Oceans, as 
well as U.S. territorial waters of the Pacific and Southern Oceans and 
the Gulf of Mexico; and to import biopsy tissues collected outside of 
U.S. waters. The permit has been amended to authorize the attachment of 
radio tags to up to 20 sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) per year 
in the eastern north Pacific Ocean.
    Issuance of this amendment, as required by the ESA, was based on a 
finding that such amendment: (1) Was applied for in good faith; (2) 
will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which 
are the subject of this permit; and (3) is consistent with the purposes 
and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: February 10, 1997.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 97-3707 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Freddie Lee PHILLIPS, Appellee.

No. 70-210.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 18, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. See, State v. Haggard, Fla.App., 239 So.2d 268.

HOBSON, C. J., and PIERCE and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
1

Gurdoglanyan, Nicole

From: Lopez, Zoilo J MAJ MIL NG NGB ARNG [Zoilo.Lopez@us.army.mil]

Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 11:39 AM

To: GovernmentAffairs

Subject: Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029 (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: FOUO

Dear Secretary LaHood:

I am writing today to express my strong support for JetBlue's application to offer new

beyond‐perimeter service at Reagan National and link the nation's capital to two other

important capital cities: San Juan, Puerto Rico (connecting onward to St. Thomas, the capital

of the U.S. Virgin Islands) and Austin, Texas.

JetBlue's application will provide much‐needed low‐fare, high‐quality service from the

capital's downtown airport to the capital of our closest territory, and to the capital of the

largest of the contiguous 48 states. Both San Juan and Austin are crying out for new JetBlue

service to DCA, being two of the ten largest markets without nonstop air service to the

airport. Their application will bring tremendous public benefit and much‐needed low‐fare

competition to DCA.

Please join me in offering your support for JetBlue's application.

My name: Zoilo Lopez

Stafford, VA

Lijuan_22@hotmail.com

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: FOUO
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D2023

- 2825 L.T. Case No. 2020

- CA

- 000186

- A

_____________________________ C HANTELLE L ECCO D ECOMO , Appellant,

v.

D AVID L YLE AND D ILLON M. L ECCO , Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County, Lawrence J. Semento , Judge

. Chantelle Lecco DeComo, Tavares, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee s

.
June 11 , 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
H ARRIS , E ISNAUGLE , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-03-1995
<CASH>                                          21,912
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                       206
<INVENTORY>                                     53,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,206
<PP&E>                                         215,136
<DEPRECIATION>                                  98,631
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 265,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,399
<BONDS>                                         62,972
<COMMON>                                         8,609
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   265,202
<SALES>                                         86,465
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                86,465
<CGS>                                           69,046
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,749
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 462
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,336
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,281
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,055
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,055
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
        

</TABLE>
#### EMPIRE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. Karen LASK, Appellee.

No. 73-35.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.