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

No. 71-385.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 11, 1972.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, Bra-denton, for appellant.

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

PIERCE, Chief Judge.

Appellant Floyd Morgan was indicted for first degree murder in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court on June 9, 1970, and on March 8, 1971, he entered plea of nolo contendere to the indictment. The following day, March 9, 1971, he was found and adjudged guilty by the trial Judge of second degree murder and sentenced to serve a term of thirty years imprisonment. On March 30, 1971, he filed notice of direct appeal to this Court from the judgment and sentence.

Upon an adjudication of indigency, the trial Court appointed the local Public Defender’s office to represent Morgan on this appeal, and in their brief filed here on behalf of Morgan they state, after reciting the substance of the foregoing facts, culminating in the nolo contendere plea which the Court accepted, that—

> “ . . .a lengthy proceeding of two days time was had, in which the court examined all the evidence in the case to determine the degree of murder. The trial court adjudged Appellant to be guilty of murder in the second degree. Prior to sentencing him, the court examined Appellant extensively as to whether or not he was fully aware of what he was doing, and knew the nature of the crime and the offense. The court further examined him as to whether or not he was satisfied with the way he had been represented. All of these questions were answered in the affirmative by Appellant. Attorney for Appellant has carefully examined this record on appeal, and feels that in light of Appellant’s plea of nolo contendere, plus the result of the court finding him guilty of second degree murder, that there is nothing in this record which would arguably support an appeal.”

The Court-appointed attorney for Morgan thereupon moved to be relieved as his attorney of record, citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.

Thereafter, on September 3, 1971, by order of this Court, appellant Morgan was allowed thirty days within which to file “an additional brief calling the Court’s attention to any matters which he feels should be considered in connection with the appeal in this cause”. Pursuant to said order, there has been nothing filed here by or on behalf of Morgan.

We have nevertheless carefully examined and considered the record and briefs on file *6here to find if any error has infected the judgment appealed or the proceedings leading up to said judgment. Nothing is revealed to show any error in the proceedings or that Morgan was accorded anything other than a fair and impartial trial free from any taint of error.

This being so, the judgment and sentence appealed from is thereupon—

Affirmed.

LILES and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

March 5, 2013

Mr. Elias Teklemariam

Commonwealth of Virginia

Re: In the Matter of Equifax Information Services LLC, File No. 1023252 

Dear Mr. Teklemariam:

Thank you for your comment regarding the Federal Trade Commission’s consent

agreement in the above-entitled proceeding. The Commission has placed your comment on the

public record pursuant to rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. §

4.9(b)(6)(ii), and has given it serious consideration.

 The Commission is committed to protecting consumers in financial distress as well as

safeguarding consumer privacy and believes that the proposed order with Equifax Information

Services LLC will further this objective. 

To the extent you believe that you have been a victim of identity theft, the Commission

has numerous resources which can be found on our website at http://consumer.ftc.gov/. In

addition, you may contact the FTC’s Consumer Response Center at (877) 282-4357, or file a

complaint online at www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov.

 

 Having considered all of the facts of this case and all of the comments submitted in

response to the proposed order, the Commission has determined that the public interest

would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without any modifications.

The final Decision and Order and other relevant materials are available from the Commission’s

website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of

sources in its work. The Commission thanks you again for your comment.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioners Leibowitz and Wright not participating.
# United States Navy

**– Marine Corps**  **Court of Criminal Appeals**

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Joshua A. POINDEXTER Lance Corporal (E

- 3 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

_________________________ 

### No. 201 8002 80

_________________________ Appeal fr om the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. Decided: 7 February 2019

_________________________ Military Judge : Lieutenant Colonel Eugene H. Robinson, Jr., USMC

. Approved Sentence: Reduction to E

- 1, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, c onf inement for 4 years 1 and a dishonorable discharge

. SenCamp Foster , Okinawa, Japan , consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Paul D. Jenkins , JAGC, USN. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

1 The Convening Authority suspen ded confinement in excess of 36 months pursuant to a pretrial agreement.United States v. Poindexter , No. 201 8 00 2 8 0

2 _________________________ Before WOODARD, HUTCHISON, and TANG Appellate Military Judges.

PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s
su bstantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). T he findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
----------------------------------------... ~ 

/ Vald-ez 

: _ . .:~~T?tillek ,~ ' ..... _-;.~y;;~ 

Che~eg~;~ay' ~rince ·• · G;;,~, ~lask~~~~ !· Outelicak. -· -~ __ JWilliam Sound' 

\1'/ ,..-

Port Gnih.a'!IJ.~ Nanw~le~! Ch_ugachmiut 

April 9, 2015 

Subject: Village of Tatitlek Essential Air ,Service Federal docket num.ber: DOT -OST -'2013-00~0 

Dear Mr. Faulk, 

Chugachmiut is writing in support_of J&M Alaska Air Tours, dba Alaska Air Transit (AAT), 

marked 'Prqposal A' providing two scheduled flights between Anchorage and Tatitlek per week. 

As the Regional Health Care Provider for the village of Tatitlek and Chenega Bay, Chugachmiut 

strongly recommends having more than one scheduled trip a week; since the addition of the three 

scheduled flights to the village of Chenega Bay, Chugachmiut has not only been able to save 

money as a Non-Profit but is able to provide goods and services to the vill~ge more frequently. 

AA T is and has been the carrier of.choice for our staff, beneficiaries and any supplies or cargo 

needed to be transported to the villages ofTatitlek and Chenega Bay for over eleven years. AAT 

is consistently reliabl~, flexible and safety has always been their iop priority. In addition to 

excellent air service, the owners and staff of AA T take a sincere interest in the wellbeing of our 

communities and beneficiaries. This commitment has been demonstrated time and time again 

from various travelers who have flown under Chugachmiut. 

Chugachmiut has seven Board Members and one each resides in both villages of Tatitlek and 

Chenega Bay; these directors are flown in regularly for quarterly meetings as well as special 

called to order meetings and the annual AFN Convention. AAT has been the air carrier for I 00% 

ofthese flights. AAT will work with Chugachmiut to accommodate not only the director's needs 

but also Chugachmiut's. 

It is highly irnportant to Chugachmiut to have a passenger facility that provides a warm dry 

waiting area that also provides cold storage for food and medications being transported. 

On behalf of Chugachmi ut, we fully support their proposal. 

~eerei~ 0 n "----c::W 

Angela 1. v ~rpool "-Executive Dir~ctor 

18.10 Brogow Street, Suite 110 I AnchorGge.AK 99508-3463/ (907) 562-4155/ Fox (907) 563-2891 

A Tribal Organization Serving the Chugach Natiy? Peoples of Alaska 

TAMAMTA P:;;i 

"All of Ours"
EXHIBIT 32.1  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 Annual Report of Hydron
Technologies, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2009, hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of the Registrant.  HYDRON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. /s/: Richard Banakus Richard Banakus Interim President, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer February 23, 2009
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Hosea D. LEVINGSTON.

No. 60622.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1977.

In re: Hosea D. Levingston applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and stay order.

*869Writ refused. There is an adequate remedy for review in the event of conviction.
OR\G\NAL
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20580 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

CASE NAE FllE/OCKET NUMBER 

McWANE, INC., et.a!. D09351 

Pursuantto Secion 4.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, I (we) am (are) entering in . l¿~;6;¥~

proceeing the appearance of ~~TARV /


o counsel supporting 
 the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4,and 5 below) 

o counselor representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

~.coun$el or: representative fora 
 third part (Completelterns1,2, 4,and5below) 

1: ..COUNSE/. OR REPRESENTATIVE . .- . '.. . - .. .. , . . '.. J~" ';.,-";-- i:., 2.l%ESP()NRE~T(§) OR THIRD PARTX(IÈS)
 Inclucethêna., addre' email ~drei;s;lind!telepne
 lnclü~ethlKi;resSand telepho numbe ofalllJerSons, numiir .ofe.acl counsel or. repreSentative enteri an pai1ershiPSiccrp~J1lici' or assQCation on whe behälf appearance in the above proceing, this Notice ofAparanc is being filed. 

KeilhJoaeph
 

Ballard.Spahr..LLP
 SIGt.COrJ!Jat 1735 Market Stret 700. Goldman. Drive Philaeielptia,PA 19103 Criimcr~idgê, m0814 Phone: 215-864-836 Phoe:tlOHsa8iO 

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

Federåi Tra~e CÔrniission
 

4. SIGNÄTUREOF SENIOR COUNSEL 5: DATE SIGNED 

(MatthewA.\Nite. Esq.) sI18Ii()12 

Retürn.this..forn.to: 

RoomH-113 . 

600Pènm¡Ylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington,e.C. 20580.. 

FTCFonn232 (rév7111) 
UNED STATES OF AMRICA
 

BEFORE THE FEDERA TRAE COMMSSION
 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

McW AN, INC., 

a corporation, and 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9351 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD. 

a limite partership 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

STATEMENT OF GOOD STANING PURUANT TO 16 C.F.R. §4.1 

In connection with 
 the Notice of Appearance fied on September 18,2012, and pursuant 

to 16 C.F.R. §4.1(d), I state that 
 I anieligible to practice before the Commssion asa member of 

the Bar of 
 the Commonwealth of 
 Pennsylvana. (Attorney ID No. 203997). As required 
 by 16
 

C.ER. § 4.l( d), I furter 
 state that I am a member of good stadig within the legal profession. 

Date: September 18,2012
 

sl Keith Joseph 

Keith Josêph,t:sq.
 

BALLAR SPAH LLF 1735 Market Stréet, 51 stFloor 

Phiadelphiå,PA 19103
 

Telephoiie: (ii5)s64--8336 

Fax:. (215).864-8999 

Email: kal.Wba1lar4spah.com 

DMEAST#15678929 vt
#### Robert WINCEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. Ronald FEWELL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40348.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 9, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 239 So.2d 538; 239 So.2d 537.

DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, C. J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Fansteel Inc. as of June 30, 1997 and the related
consolidated statement of operations for the six months ended June 30, 1997 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Company's Form 10-Q filing for
the period ended June 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       9,697,628
<SECURITIES>                                    42,825
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,300,001
<ALLOWANCES>                                   276,440
<INVENTORY>                                 18,666,505
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            51,611,988
<PP&E>                                      62,062,359
<DEPRECIATION>                              48,227,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              85,300,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,460,272
<BONDS>                                      1,719,551
<COMMON>                                    21,497,145
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,680,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                85,300,894
<SALES>                                     69,555,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            69,555,519
<CGS>                                       56,883,651
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               65,051,088
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (266,818)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,032
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,505
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,771,249
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,878,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,893,249
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,893,249
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        

</TABLE>
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-10989

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODERICK GENE REED, also known as Rod,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CR-68-2

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roderick Gene Reed, 46988-019, was sentenced to an enhanced term of life

in prison following his convictions for possession of cocaine and cocaine base with

intent to distribute, maintaining a residence for purposes of distributing drugs,

and possession of a firearm by a felon. This court affirmed on direct appeal.

United States v. McBrown, No. 96-11491,(5th Cir. June 22, 1998) (unpublished).

Reed has been unsuccessful in seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Reed also

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 14, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-10989 Document: 00511111507 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2010
No. 09-10989

2

filed an unsuccessful motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

due to the crack cocaine amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines.

Reed filed a motion requesting that he be granted a new sentencing

proceeding by writ of error coram nobis. Reed contends that the enhancement

information filed by the Government was defective and that the district court

thus lacked jurisdiction to impose an enhanced sentence of life imprisonment.

The district court found that relief pursuant to a writ of coram nobis was not

available because Reed was in custody.

It is undisputed that Reed was in custody when he sought coram nobis

relief and is still in custody. The district court did not err in finding that the

writ of coram nobis is not an avenue of relief available to him. See United States

v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-10989 Document: 00511111507 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2010
Appendix M 

CAIR Implementation
Appendix M - 1
Appendix M - 2
Appendix M - 3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3738]


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


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Joint Meeting of the 
ACRS Subcommittees on Materials and Metallurgy and on Severe Accidents; 
Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittees on Materials and Metallurgy and on Severe 
Accidents will hold a joint meeting on March 4 and 5, 1997, Room T-2B3, 
11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Tuesday, March 4, 1997--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business
Wednesday, March 5, 1997--8:30 a.m. until 12:00 Noon

    The Subcommittees will review the regulatory analysis and technical 
bases for the steam generator tube integrity rule, as well as an 
associated regulatory guide. The purpose of this meeting is to gather 
information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and to formulate 
proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the 
full Committee.
    Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the 
concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be 
accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are 
open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the 
Subcommittees, their consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make 
oral statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named 
below five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made.
    During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittees, along 
with any of their consultants who may be present, may exchange 
preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance 
of the meeting.
    The Subcommittees will then hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and other interested 
persons regarding this review.
    Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been cancelled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on 
requests for the opportunity to present oral statements, and the time 
allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer, Mr. Noel F. Dudley (telephone 301/415-6888) between 
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting 
are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the 
agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

    Dated: February 7, 1997.
Sam Duraiswamy,
Chief, Nuclear Reactors Branch.
[FR Doc. 97-3738 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<CAPTION>
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                          SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                     35,600
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             298,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                               15,100
<INVENTORY>                                               456,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          842,600
<PP&E>                                                    667,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                            265,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          1,635,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     413,000
<BONDS>                                                   439,000
<COMMON>                                                  175,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                               131,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                215,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            1,635,500
<SALES>                                                 1,549,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        1,549,900
<CGS>                                                   1,240,300  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             260,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            2,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         32,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            14,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                                5,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         9,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                9,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 .07

        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.33

 

DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS

 

First Data Corporation (the “Company”) directors do not receive compensation. However, all of the directors of the Company are also directors of the Company’s parent company, First Data Holdings Inc. (“Holdings”). The Governance, Compensation and Nominations Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Holdings has approved compensation for each non-employee directors of Holdings of $40,000 per year payable in semi-annual installments. Such directors may make an election to defer compensation earned in each calendar year under the First Data Holdings Inc. 2008 Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation Plan. All amounts deferred will accrue earnings based on the performance of Holdings common stock and be paid to the director upon termination of the director’s service, subject to acceleration of the payout under certain circumstances.