alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nolan Felix BURCHIL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-820.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 12, 1967.

*10Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Phillip A. Hubbart, Asst. Public Defender, Tom 0. Watkins, Public Defender (Key West), for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., -for appellee.

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

PEARSON, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals the summary denial of his second petition pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule One, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. He urges that he is entitled to a hearing in the trial court upon his allegation:

> “That after the Defendant’s conviction he was insolvent and financially unable to employ counsel to represent him or [sic] his appeal, that [sic] he was not informed by his attorney or by the court if he was not able to employ counsel for this appeal that the court would employ counsel for him”.

It was further alleged that defendant was indigent and that defendant was unlearned in the law.

It is true that the denial of the assistance of counsel for a direct appeal may, where other facts are present, constitute a ground for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule One. See State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 892; Donald v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 357; DeMotte v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 203 So.2d 662.

In Jackson v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 166 So.2d 194, we held that a petition alleging the refusal of the appointed counsel to prosecute an appeal stated sufficient grounds for an evidentiary hearing. See also Hinton v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So. 2d 552. It will be noted that in the present petition the appellant does not say that he was in any way frustrated in his attempt to appeal but simply that no one told him that counsel would be furnished to him if he wished to appeal.

An allegation of this type was discussed in Pate v. Holman, 5 Cir.1965, 341 F.2d 764, 775 (1965). The Court stated that:

> “ * * * an indig'ent’s right to appellate counsel, which Douglas recognizes as an ‘absolute’ right guaranteed under both the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause, is not absolute in the sense that the right to trial counsel is absolute. It is not necessary that the trial judge initiate action toward the appointment of appellate counsel by advising a convicted person of his rights or by making any inquiry as to his indi-gency, although such minimal action at the time of sentencing seems highly desirable. * * * For a petitioner to be entitled to post-conviction relief, it is not enough to show that indigency occasioned the petitioner’s inability to employ counsel or to appeal; the petitioner must show that the *State*deprived him of his Fourteenth Amendment rights.”

See also Murray v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 292, Edge v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1965, 347 F.2d 190.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Beulah P. PARKS v. Donovan W. PARKER, Judge, 19th Judicial District Court, et al.

No. 54261.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 25, 1974.

In re: Beulah P. Parks, applying for writ of mandamus and/or remedial writs and prohibition.

Writ refused. The ruling complained of is correct. See R.S. 15:474.4, subd. C. See judgment of trial court.

DIXON, J., is of the opinion that this application is moot and we do not reach a review of the trial court’s ruling.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 734 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 734

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 3 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the extension of 
certain Federal benefits, services, and assistance to the Pascua Yaqui 
             Indians of Arizona, and for other purposes.''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SOVEREIGNTY OF PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act 
entitled ``An Act to provide for the extension of certain Federal 
benefits, services, and assistance to the Pascua Yaqui Indians of 
Arizona, and for other purposes'' (25 U.S.C. 1300f(a)) is amended by 
inserting after the first sentence the following: ``The Pascua Yaqui 
Tribe, a historic Indian tribe, is acknowledged as a federally 
recognized Indian tribe possessing all the attributes of inherent 
sovereignty which have not been specifically taken away by Acts of 
Congress and which are not inconsistent with such tribal status.''.
    (b) Extension of Enrollment Deadline.--Section 3 of such Act (25 
U.S.C. 1300f-2) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (B) by striking ``and''; and
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (C) as paragraph (D) and 
        inserting after paragraph (B) the following new paragraph (C):
            ``(C) all those persons of Yaqui blood who are citizens of 
        the United States and who, within three years after the date of 
        enactment of this paragraph, apply for enrollment in the Pascua 
        Yaqui Tribe pursuant to the membership criteria and procedures 
        provided for in the official governing documents of the Pascua 
        Yaqui Tribe; and''.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 2, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 21.1

                             C-ATS SOFTWARE INC.
                            LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


C-ATS Software UK Ltd.
Roman House
Wood Street
London, EC2Y SBA UK

C-ATS Software AG
10 Route de L'Englise
CH-1291 Commungny, Switzerland

C-ATS Software Japan K.K.
NTF Takebashi Bldg., 8th Floor
3-15 Kanda-Nishikicho
Chlyode-ku, Tokyo 101 Japan

C-ATS Sub, Inc.
1825 Century Park East
Suite 2120
Los Angeles, CA  90067
##### 



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 Apollo Gold Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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. /s/ R. DAVID RUSSELLR. David RussellPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 15, 2005/s/ MELVYN WILLIAMSMelvyn WilliamsChief Financial Officer and Senior VicePresident-Finance and Corporate DevelopmentMarch 15, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7897 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to provide a grant for research 

and training in the operation or establishment of an implicit bias training 

program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2020 

Mr. BROWN of Maryland (for himself, Ms. NORTON, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. HASTINGS, and Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to provide a grant 

for research and training in the operation or establishment of an implicit bias training program, 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 ‘‘Bias In Automobile 

5 Stops Act of 2020’’ or ‘‘BIAS Act of 2020’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7897 IH

1 SEC. 2. IMPLICIT BIAS RESEARCH AND TRAINING GRANTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transportation 

3 shall make grants to institutions of higher education (as 

4 such term is defined in section 101 of the Higher Edu5 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)) for research and 

6 training in the operation or establishment of an implicit 

7 bias training program as it relates to racial profiling at 

8 traffic stops. 

9 (b) QUALIFICATIONS.—To be eligible for a grant 

10 under this section, an institution of higher education 

11 shall— 

12 (1) have an active research program or dem13 onstrate, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that 

14 the applicant is beginning a research program to 

15 study implicit bias as it relates to racial profiling be16 fore and during traffic stops; and 

17 (2) partner with State and local police depart18 ments to conduct the research described in para19 graph (1) and carry out the implementation of im20 plicit bias training with State and local police de21 partments. 

22 (c) REPORT.—No later than 1 year after a grant has 

23 been awarded under this section, the institution of higher 

24 education awarded the grant shall submit to the Com25 mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 

26 of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7897 IH

1 Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report sum2 marizing the research on implicit bias as it relates to racial 

3 profiling before and during traffic stops, and recommenda4 tions on effective interventions and trainings. 

5 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

6 are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each 

7 fiscal year to carry out this section. 

8 (e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the term ‘‘implicit 

9 bias training program’’ means a program that looks at the 

10 attitudes, stereotypes, and lenses human beings develop 

11 through various experiences in life that can unconsciously 

12 affect how they interact with one another. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1919

In Re: GEORGE PAUL LAROQUE, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(1:08-cv-00564-NCT; 1:08-mc-00031-TDS) 

Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 9, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

George Paul Laroque, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

George Paul Laroque petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 

appeal from the bankruptcy court. He seeks an order from this 

court directing the district court to act. Our review of the 

docket sheet reveals that the district court denied Laroque’s 

motions for injunctive relief on December 22, 2008, and 

consolidated the four appeals Laroque has filed in order to rule 

on his remaining outstanding motions on December 24, 2008. 

Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided

Laroque’s case, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 

deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 30401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13916]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-14-2018]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 158--Vicksburg/Jackson, Mississippi; 
Authorization of Production Activity; International Converter 
(Insulation Facer); Iuka, Mississippi

    On February 23, 2018, International Converter submitted a 
notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its 
facility within FTZ 158, in Iuka, Mississippi.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (83 FR 8965-8966, March 2, 2018). On 
June 25, 2018, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision 
that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The 
production activity described in the notification was authorized, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.14.

    Dated: June 25, 2018.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13916 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
**GGD-92-93**                      Published: Aug 14, 1992. Publicly Released: Aug 14, 1992.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO evaluated the impact of federal sentencing guidelines, focusing on: (1) whether the guidelines reduced the variation by type of crime and offenders' criminal histories in sentences imposed and time served; (2) how the sentence guidelines relate to offense and offender characteristics; (3) what perceptions criminal justice system officials have on the effects of the guidelines; and (4) how the guidelines have affected the operations of the federal criminal justice system.

## Recommendations

## Matter for Congressional Consideration

## Recommendations for Executive Action

## Full Report

Full Report (200 pages)

## Office of Public Affairs

Chuck Young
youngc1@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Justice and Law Enforcement

CrimesCriminal procedureCriminalsData collectionImprisonmentDefendantsFederal courtsJudicial procedureOffender rehabilitationRacial discriminationStandards evaluation
#### CITY OF BATON ROUGE v. June G. OVERTON.

No. 62397.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: June G. Overton applying for remedial writs. E. Baton Rouge Parish.

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 William H. Brown Judge of the City Court of Baton Rouge, Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 15th day of September, 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.

*1214It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the 1st day of September, 1978, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

J.M., the father,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2607

[March 17, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin 

County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432020DP000038.

Crystal J. Marsh of Marsh Law Firm, P.A., Stuart, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum of Children’s Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for 

appellee Department of Children and Families.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Gloria Floyd, Assistant Regional 

Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Fourth District, 

West Palm Beach, for appellee the Mother.

ON CONCESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Appellant J.M. is a non-offending father appealing the trial court’s order 

finding his child, Z.M., dependent as to the child’s mother but withholding 

adjudication of dependency. He argues the trial court erred in withholding 

adjudication under section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (2020), because the 

mother had uncompleted case plan tasks other than supervision. Some of those 

tasks included: finding stable housing and income, completing a drug treatment 

program, and completing parenting classes. Appellee Department of Children 

and Families properly concedes error, and we reverse. 

“Dependency adjudications are reviewed under the abuse of discretion 

standard.” A.T.N. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 70 So. 3d 634, 636 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see also D. Children v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 

820 So. 2d 980, 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (same). “However, because it appears 

the circuit court’s order, and the [parties’] arguments on appeal, both rest upon 
the interpretation of Chapter 39’s requirements, our review is de novo.” N.A. v. 

Dep’t of Children & Families, 267 So. 3d 430, 433–34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). 

Section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (2020), states the court may withhold 

adjudication if it “finds that the child named in the petition is dependent, but 

finds that no action other than supervision in the child’s home is required.” 

(emphasis added). Here, the court should not have withheld adjudication as to 

the mother because there were “action[s] other than supervision” that had to be 

completed. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an 

order adjudicating the child dependent and for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded. 

DAMOORGIAN, FORST, and KLINGENSMITH JJ., concur.

* * *

FINAL UPON RELEASE; NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE 

ENTERTAINED; MANDATE ISSUED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH OPINION.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                    Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



     I, Christopher M. Rasmussen, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting
Officer), certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Gateway Energy Corporation and
its subsidiaries for the periods presented.


Date:  November 10, 2006                    /s/  Christopher M. Rasmussen
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Christopher M. Rasmussen
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 (Principal Accounting Officer)
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Leon DENSON, etc., Respondent.

No. 42708.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 28, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

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

ROBERTS and ADKINS, JJ., dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                    150
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             15,096
<ALLOWANCES>                              1,588
<INVENTORY>                               24,951
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          43,407
<PP&E>                                    23,476
<DEPRECIATION>                            13,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     8,290
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  1,436
<OTHER-SE>                                45,671
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              78,880
<SALES>                                   21,831
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          21,831
<CGS>                                     12,085
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             4,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            79,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          56
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        338
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (299)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (126)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (173)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              (173)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (.04)

</TABLE>