alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John T. MILLWOOD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 91-8295

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 14, 1992.

*195Jeffery C. Duffey, Susan G. James, Montgomery, Ala., for defendant-appellant.

William L. McKinnon, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, HATCHETT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the sentence he received in the district court for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1988). He assigns three points of error, none of which was raised in the district court; he also claims that the trial attorney failed to render him effective assistance of counsel. With respect to this latter claim, we do not consider ineffective counsel claims on direct appeal from a conviction. *See, e.g., United States v. Griffin,*699 F.2d 1102, 1107-09 (11th Cir.1983). The same policy logically should apply to direct appeals from sentences; thus, we refuse to consider appellant’s ineffective assistance claim at this time. Whether counsél rendered ineffective assistance should be determined in the first instance by the district court on a fully developed evidentiary record. Once such a determination has been made, we will review it.

In *United States v. Jones,*899 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 275,112 L.Ed.2d 230 (1990), in the exercise of our supervisory power, we directed the district courts, after imposing sentence, to elicit the parties’ objections, if any, to the sentence. We did this to facilitate appellate review, and moreover, to enable the district court to correct on the spot any error that may have occurred in reaching the sentence and thus, perhaps, to render an appeal unnecessary. In this case, the district court failed to elicit the parties’ objections; hence, they are presented to us for the first time. The district court, as we said in *Jones,*should pass on them first. We therefore vacate appellant's sentence and remand the case for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.
#### W. H. CARTER et al., Petitioners, v. Orland W. ROCKMAN and wife, Mildred C. Rockman, and Herman W. Hilding, Respondents.

No. 41156.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 17, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Page: 1 

### VOLUME 1 OF 2 OF SUBMISSION

(TRANSMITTAL DOCUMENT)

1. Name and Address of Submitter

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.

P.O. Box 18300

Greensboro, NC 27419

2. Regulatory Action in Support of which this Package is Submitted

Submission of 2009 Atrazine Monitoring Program Report.

3. Transmittal Date

01/28/2010

4. List of Submitted Studies

MRID

NUMBER VOLUME

NUMBER STUDY

TITLE EPA GUIDELINE

NUMBER

1 OF 2 Transmittal Document N/A

2 OF 2 2009 Atrazine Monitoring Program, 2K10

-

901

- 1301

- 03

- 01, (G030027_50104) N/A

COMPANY OFFICIAL: DAN CAMPBELL

(NAME) (SIGNATURE)

COMPANY NAME: SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION

COMPANY CONTACT: DAN CAMPBELL (336) 632

- 7627

(NAME) (PHONE)
# Official Journal L 126/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 126 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5821 May 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 126

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5821 May 2015

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2015/779 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013, as regards an additional initial prefinancing amount paid to operational programmes supported by the Youth Employment Initiative | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) 2015/779 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013, as regards an additional initial prefinancing amount paid to operational programmes supported by the Youth Employment Initiative

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,546,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,956,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,242,600
<PP&E>                                      29,049,200
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,874,600)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,235,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,882,000
<BONDS>                                     10,642,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        8,313,800
<PREFERRED>                                      9,400
<COMMON>                                       327,100
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,498,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,235,100
<SALES>                                     12,604,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,604,000
<CGS>                                        7,251,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,532,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             695,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                126,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             99,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    99,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Madelyn Miller, Appellant, v Martin H. Brownstein et al., Respondents.

[736 NYS2d 257]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the Clerk of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, to restore to the general calendar the petitioner’s appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, in an action entitled *Miller v Kelner,*commenced under Index No. 32694/92, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated November 30, 2000, which, upon granting the *511motion of the respondents Joseph Kelner and Robert Kelner, individually and as partners in the law firm of Kelner & Kelner, a New York State Partnership, and Kelner & Kelner, and the separate motion of the respondents Martin H. Brown-stein, James E. Pelzer, and the Office of the Clerk of the Court of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, to dismiss the proceeding insofar as asserted against them, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in dismissing this proceeding as time barred. CPLR 217 (1) requires that a proceeding against a body or officer be commenced “within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner.” A challenged determination is final and binding within the meaning of the statute when it has an impact upon the petitioner and when he or she knows that he or she is aggrieved (see, *Matter of Edmead v McGuire,*67 NY2d 714; *Matter of James v Wing,*281 AD2d 627, *lv denied*96 NY2d 721). The petitioner challenges the refusal of the State respondents to calendar her two appeals which had been rejected for filing as untimely and which were ultimately dismissed on October 12, 1994. This determination became final and binding no later than October 15, 1996, when the Court of Appeals denied the petitioner’s application for leave to appeal from the denial of her motion to vacate the dismissal of the appeals. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that this proceeding, commenced more than three years after the Court of Appeals denied the petitioner’s leave application, is time barred by the applicable four-month statute of limitations (see, CPLR 217).

In light of our determination, we need not address the petitioner’s remaining contentions. Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.
#### THEOPHILUS SPICER, appellant *vs.*JANE B. SPICER, respondent, plaintiff below.

Where land is assigned to the wife upon a decree of divorce, she is entitled to the rents from the confirmation of the sale.

Appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace.

Theophilus Spicer was the tenant of Lewis Spicer. Jane B. Spicer was the wife of Lewis Spicer, and was divorced hy this court, and the land occupied by appellant assigned to the wife hy the judgment in divorce. The defendant refused to pay her the rent; and she brought the action below against him for it.

The decree of divorce (April 13, 1844,) ordered one-third of the husband’s land to be laid off by commissioners, to the wife, to hold for her life. The assignment was made the 21st of October, 1844, and confirmed the 26th of October, 1844.

William W. Morgan,—Described the property laid off to Mrs. Spicer, under the decree of divorce. Theophilus Spicer was in possession in 1844, as a tenant of Lewis Spicer; the farm was good for one hundred hundred and fifty, to two hundred bushels of corn.

*Mr. Cullen*

claimed that Mrs. Spicer was entitled to the land and emblements from the date of the order laying it off, under the decree of divorce; by relation; after confirmation: that the pendency of the libel for divorce was notice to all the world; and the tenant was bound to take notice. [3 *Harr.*291; 3 *Johns.*222; *Arch. L. & T.*110, 150; 4 *Kent’s Com.*467; 1 *Story’s Eq. %*405.] '

*Mr. Houston*

said that the wife had no claim to the rents until the proceedings of the commissioners were confirmed. Rent due before transfer of the reversion does not go with it. Rent by the common law and usage in Sussex, is *due*when the grain is ripe and deliverable, and is due *on*the premises. [3 *Harr. Rep.*82, 499.]

Cullen.

The rent is payable to the landlord at a *certain*time, not dependent on the weather. Rent of crops unsevered passes to the vendee *or*alienee of the reverson. [4 *Kent’s Com.*467.]

*The Court*

said Mrs. Spicer was entitled from the confirmation of the commissioners’ return. If the rent was payable after the 26th of October, 1844, she was entitled to recover. The rent was not due until ripe, severed and delivered. Thb tenant is bound to gather the corn and divide it, with notice to the landlord.

Verdict for respondent.
[No. 879-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

May 30, 1972.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Curtis Thomas, *Appellant.*
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 12

GTE Southwest Incorporated

STATEMENT OF THE RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Thousands of Dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Three Months
                                                   Ended
                                                  March 31,
                                                    1997
                                                 ----------
<S>                                              <C>       
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations              $   86,429
  Add - Income taxes                                 44,254
       - Fixed charges                               16,254
                                                 ----------

Adjusted earnings                                $  146,937
                                                 ==========

Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                               $   14,991
  Portion of rent expense
     representing interest                            1,263
                                                 ----------
Adjusted fixed charges                           $   16,254
                                                 ==========


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                     9.04
</TABLE>
April 29 , 2015

Mr. Michael H. LaMee

Chief of Training & Standardization

209 State H ighway 121 bypass

Lewisville

, TX 75067

Dear Mr. LaMee :

This letter is to inform you that we have received and begun processing your petition for

exemption. It acknowledges receipt of the petition and describes how we will process it.

We Have the Petition

We have received your March 19, 2015 , petition for an exemption from § 43.3(a) of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would a llow properly trained

medical personnel to perform the insertion and removal of litter systems, isolettes and secondary

stretcher systems in the EC

- 135 and EC

- 155 aircraft operated by MED

- Trans Corporation.

We have added your petition to the p ublic docket (No. FAA

- 2015

- 0726 ) and we are processing

it. We will contact you if we need additional information.

How We Will Process the Petition

A petition for an exemption, according to § 11.63(d), must be sent to the FAA at least 120 days

before the proposed effective date of the exemption. In addition, we will publish a summary of

the petition in the Federal Register for public com ment

.

We will advise you of the agency's final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you

have any questions in the meantime, you may contact me at (202) 267

- 4713

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Alphonso W. Pendergrass II

Transportation Industry Analyst

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division
254 La. 777

#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. Milton K. GOLDBERG.

No. 49999.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 8, 1969.

In re: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 223 So.2d 174.

Writ refused. The result is correct.

FOURNET, C. J„ and McCALEB and BARHAM, JJ., are of the opinion the writ should be granted.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

       LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AND THEIR COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION/OPERATION


 .  iProcure, Inc.                                       United States of America

 .  Datastream Systems International, Inc.               United States of America

 .  Datastream FSC, Inc.                                 U.S. Virgin Islands

 .  SQL Group, B.V.                                      The Netherlands

 .  Datastream Systems, BV                               The Netherlands

 .  Datastream Systems (UK), Ltd.                        The United Kingdom

 .  Datastream, SA                                       France

 .  SQL System Participates, BV                          The Netherlands

 .  SQL Systems Deutschland, GmbH                        Germany

 .  Datastream Systems, GmbH                             Germany

 .  Datastream Insta Holding GmbH                        Germany

 .  Datastream Systems GmbH & Co. KG                     Germany

 .  Asystum Participations, BV                           The Netherlands

 .  Datastream Systems Ireland Ltd.                      Ireland

 .  Sikasso Pte Ltd.                                     Singapore

 .  Datastream-SIS Pte Ltd.                              Singapore

 .  Datastream Systems Pty Ltd.                          Australia

 .  Computec Sistemas S.A.                               Argentina

 .  Datastream Systems de Mexico S.A. de C.V.            Mexico

 .  Datastream Servicios Mexicanos, S. de R.L. de C.V.   Mexico

 .  Datastream Systems do Brasil Ltda.                   Brazil
Exhibit 15Exhibit 15—Letter Re: Unaudited Interim Financial InformationTo the Shareholders and Board of Directors of Goodrich CorporationWe are aware of the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements and intheir related Prospectuses, of our report dated July 26, 2007 relating to the unaudited condensedconsolidated interim financial statements of Goodrich Corporation that are included in its Form10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007:     **Registration**    **Number** **Description of Registration Statement** **Filing Date**33-49052 The B.F.Goodrich Company Key Employees’ Stock Option Plan — Form S-8 June 26, 1992     333-03293 The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan — Form S-8 May 8, 1996          333-19697 The B.F.Goodrich Company Savings Benefit Restoration Plan — Form S-8 January 13, 1997     333-53879 Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan — Form S-8 May 29, 1998     333-53881 Rohr, Inc. 1982 Stock Option Plan, Rohr, Inc. 1989 Stock IncentivePlan and Rohr, Inc. 1995 Stock Incentive Plan — Form S-8 May 29, 1998     333-76297 Coltec Industries Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan and Coltec IndustriesInc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors — Form S-8 April 14, 1999     333-77023 The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan and Goodrich Corporation2001 Equity Compensation Plan — Form S-8 April 26, 1999     333-60210 Goodrich Corporation Stock Option Plan — Form S-8 May 4, 2001     333-60208 Goodrich Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan — Form S-8 May 4, 2001     333-98165 Shelf Registration for Debt Securities, Series Preferred Stock,Common Stock, Stock Purchase Contracts and Stock Purchase Units —Form S-3 August 15, 2002     333-107866 Goodrich Corporation Employees’ Savings Plan — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-107867 Goodrich Corporation Wage Employees’ Savings Plan — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-107868 Goodrich Corporation Savings Plan for Rohr Employees — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-109247 Goodrich Corporation Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan — Form S-8 September 29, 2003     333-123721 Goodrich Corporation Outside Director Deferral Plan — Form S-8 March 31, 2005     333-124244 Goodrich Corporation 2001 Equity Compensation Plan — Form S-8 April 22, 2005                                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP         Charlotte, North Carolina
#### BUDERS, INC., d/b/a Herrald’s the Sound People, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 73-67.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 7, 1973.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           5,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  713,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                    46,500
<INVENTORY>                                     48,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               987,500
<PP&E>                                       9,966,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,631,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,679,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          900,600
<BONDS>                                      1,744,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       978,300
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,012,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,679,600
<SALES>                                        770,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               770,000
<CGS>                                          221,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  447,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                288,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                   109,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            178,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   178,800
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### COLONIAL INN et al., Petitioners, v. Eusebio VARGAS et al., Respondents.

No. 49679.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 29, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1978.

John C. Allen, Jr. and Donald D. Gillis of Underwood, Gillis, Karcher, Reinert & Gordon, Miami, for petitioners.

Howard N. Pelzner and Peter S. Sehwe-dock of Pelzner & Schwedock, Miami, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on Petition for Writ of Certiorari upon the transcript of record and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, to review the order of the Industrial Relations Commission and the Court finding no departure from the essential requirements of law, it is ordered that said petition be and the same is hereby-denied. See: *Scholastic Systems, Inc. et al. v. LeLoup et al.,*307 So.2d 166 (Fla.1974).

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.

ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ, dissent.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7200

EARL JACOB CROSS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (2:06-cv-00565-RAJ)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Jacob Cross, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Earl Jacob Cross seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cross has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED