alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harris Rudolph DEAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-681.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 2, 1971.

Harris Rudolph Dean, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
# C_2020129EN.01001401.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/14

---

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Numbi v Council

(Case T-109/20)

(2020/C 129/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: John Numbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 5 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 5 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 5 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 5 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dong Nguyen, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 408]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), rendered April 25, 1994, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (2 counts), and *299criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (2 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A defendant has a right to be present at sidebar conferences with prospective jurors which explore their backgrounds and their ability to weigh the evidence objectively *(see, People v Antommarchi,*80 NY2d 247). Here, the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to be present prior to the commencement of the voir dire *(see, People v Smallwood,*225 AD2d 713).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Mario SEGUI and Ersira Segui, his wife, Appellants, v. James Richard MOONEY, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1334.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 4, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Louisiana, ex rel., Pete PICHLER v. Hon. Nestor L. CURRAULT, Jr., Judge.

No. 62646.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Pete Pichler, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of-Jefferson.

Writ denied. Mandamus — moot.
# MHE Shop Repair Order

                - Title:  MHE Shop Repair Order 
                - Form #:         GSA1407      
                - Current Revision Date:  05/1984
                - Authority or Regulation:  FSS P 2901.4

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
#### Lee MORRIS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-631.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 19, 1971.

Habeas corpus denied.
Office of Civil Rights

Findings of Discrimination

FY 2024 2nd Quarter

Pursuant to the Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2020

Date of 

Finding

Agency Date(s) Discrimination 

Occurred

Law Violated

2/2/2023 GSA 10/9/2019 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964

RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS: This Notice also informs all employees, former employees, and applicants for employment of the 

rights and protections available to them under Section 201 of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 

Retaliation Act of 2002, as amended (No FEAR Act), Federal Antidiscrimination Laws, and Whistleblower Protection Laws. Please 

see the No FEAR Act Notice at the following link for more information: No Fear Act
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31386-31387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14345]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Project No. 14581-002; Project No. 2299-082]


Notice of Modification of Procedural Schedule; Turlock Irrigation 
District, Modesto Irrigation District

    Take notice that the schedule for processing the following 
hydroelectric applications has been modified.
    a. Type of Applications: Major Licenses.
    b. Project Nos.: 14581-002 and 2299-082.
    c. Date filed: October 11, 2017.
    d. Applicant: Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation 
District (Districts).
    e. Name of Projects: La Grange and Don Pedro Hydroelectric 
Projects.
    f. Location: The La Grange Project is located on the Tuolumne River 
in

[[Page 31387]]

Stanislaus and Tuolumne Counties, California. The Don Pedro Project is 
located on the Tuolumne River in Tuolumne County, California. Portions 
of both projects occupy public lands managed by the Bureau of Land 
Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Steve Boyd, Turlock Irrigation District, 333 
East Canal Drive, Turlock, California 95381-0949, (209) 883-8300; and 
Anna Brathwaite, Modesto Irrigation District, P.O. Box 4060, Modesto, 
CA 95352, (209) 526-7384.
    i. FERC Contact: Jim Hastreiter at (503) 552-2760 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d2b8b3bfb7a1fcbab3a1a6a0b7bba6b7a092b4b7a0b1fcb5bda4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9c3c8c4ccda87c1c8dadddbccc0ddccdbe9cfccdbca87cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>.
    j. Procedural Schedule: The Commission's November 30, 2017, Notice 
of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis for each of the 
projects established July 2018 as the estimated date for issuing the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The revised estimate for 
issuing the Draft EIS is now November 2018. As such, the applications 
will be processed according to the following revised schedule. 
Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. If a due date 
falls on a weekend or holiday, the due date will be the following 
business day.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission issues Draft EIS............  November 2018.
Comments on Draft EIS..................  January 2019.
Modified Terms and Conditions..........  March 2019.
Commission issues Final EIS............  May 2019.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: June 27, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14345 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Mrs. Janice Marie DAIGLE, Individually and as Natural Tutrix of her minor child, Chadwick Edward Daigle, Jr. v. Arnold F. HESS, Jr., et al.

No. 53159.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1973.

In re: Mrs. Janice Marie Daigle, Individually and as Natural Tutrix of her Minor Child, Chadwick Edward Daigle, Jr. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Pointe Coupee. 270 S,o.2d 294.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. EFFICIENT LEASING CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Prout Film Productions, Inc., and Charles D. Prout, III, Appellees.

No. 70-1063.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 21, 1971.

Appeal from' Circuit Court, Orange County; B. C. Muszynski, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02977

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 02977\02977_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02977\02977_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

02977\02977_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 02977\02977_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02977\02977_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02977\02977_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02977\02977_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02977\02977_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02977\02977_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

02977\Certification Statement_02977.pdf Plant certification statement

02977\Supporting Documentation\02977_A2-3 EIS 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02977\Supporting Documentation\02977_A2-3 EIS 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02977\Supporting Documentation\02977_A2-3 EIS 3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02977\Supporting Documentation\02977_A2-3 EIS 4.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02977\Supporting Documentation\02977_A2-3 EIS 5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02977\Supporting Documentation\02977_A2-3 EIS 6.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02977\Supporting Documentation\02977_A2-3 EIS 7.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02977\Supporting Documentation\02977_A2-3 EIS 8.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02977\Supporting Documentation\02977_A2-3 EIS 9.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02977\Supporting Documentation\02977_A5-2 MAP-1.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02977\Supporting Documentation\02977_A5-2 MAP-2.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02977\Supporting Documentation\02977_D3-1 Block Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02977\Supporting Documentation\2977_A5-2 Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
- Home
- About Ben and GPO
- Libraries
- Learning Adventures   - 
  - 
  -
- Glossary
- Games
- 

- Parents & Educators
- Citizenship
- About this site
- Legal

                          - 
                          - About this site
                          - Legal
                          - Feedback

                          - 
                          - 

# 

- 
- 
- 
-    - 4 to 8 badge
  - 9to13
  - 14more
- 
-
#### ELISHA CAREY, defendant below, *vs.*WILLIAM RUSSEL, Sen., plaintiff below.

*A*justice of the peace has not power to enter a judgment on the report of arbitrators apppointed by the parties in an amicable action.

Certiorari to Justice Rench.

Record. William Russel *vs.*Elisha Carey. Amicable action before Matthew Rench, Esq. The parties went voluntarily before the justice, and agreed in writing to refer all matters in variance between them to two referees chosen by themselves, who were sworn, arid made report in favor of *the*plaintiff for *$25 75, on*which the magistrate entered judgment for that amount with costs.

The exception was, that justices of the peace have no jurisdiction to try amicable actions. The trial must be either by three referees *appointed by the justice,*or by the justice himself. And he has no right to try any cause unless originated by summons or capias, with the single exception of entering judgment on a judgment note.

In support of the judgment it was urged, that the reference in this case was authorized by the written consent of parties; and that their agreement that the justice of the peace should render judgment pursuant to such reference removed all objection.

C. G. *Ridgely,*for plaintiff in error.

*Brinckloe,*for defendant in error.

*By the Court.*

The principle is, that consent may take away error, but cannot confer jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of inferior tribunals must be construed strictly; it is conferred by statute and must be plainly embraced within the terms of the law. There is nothing in the act “ providing for the recovery of small debts,” authorizing the entry of an amicable action before justices of the peace, or authorizing the entry of judgments by them otherwise than in suits commenced according to the forms of that law and tried before them, or before referees of their appointment, or upon judgment notes. The principle of this case was decided in *Morrison*vs. *The*Wilmington *& Kennet Turnpike Company.*1 *Harr. Rep.*366.

Judgment reversed.
# C_2020371EN.01002701.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/27

---

Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Spisto v Commission

(Case T-572/20)

(2020/C 371/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Amanda Spisto (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 24 September 2019 rejecting her request for review of competition EPSO/AD/371/19 — Field 1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 24 September 2019 rejecting her request for review of competition EPSO/AD/371/19 — Field 1;

| — | annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision dated 26 May 2020 rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision dated 26 May 2020 rejecting the complaint;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging illegality of the competition notice on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted, on the ground that it breached the principles of legal certainty, transparency and predictability, not only in the assessment of the selection criteria but also as regards the ‘relevance’ to be assessed and found by the members of the EPSO selection board in the ‘talent screener’ test. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging illegality of the competition notice on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted, on the ground that it breached the principles of legal certainty, transparency and predictability, not only in the assessment of the selection criteria but also as regards the ‘relevance’ to be assessed and found by the members of the EPSO selection board in the ‘talent screener’ test.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that no statement of reasons was given for the contested decision. The applicant submits that, after the EPSO selection board’s decision, it was not possible to ascertain from the contested decision how the assessment was made, the criteria that were used or the way in which relevance to questions was determined. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that no statement of reasons was given for the contested decision. The applicant submits that, after the EPSO selection board’s decision, it was not possible to ascertain from the contested decision how the assessment was made, the criteria that were used or the way in which relevance to questions was determined.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

---
# Permit for Welding, Cutting, or Brazing

                - Title:  Permit for Welding, Cutting, or Brazing 
                - Form #:         GSA1755      
                - Current Revision Date:  06/1991
                - Authority or Regulation:  PBS 5900.2C

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
#### R. R. F., INC., a Florida corporation, and the Fremac School at Jacksonville, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Joseph P. McGONAGLE et al., Appellees.

No. R-361.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 10, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 8, 1973.

Arthur J. Gutman, Jacksonville, for appellants.

Daniel A. Naughton, Jacksonville, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs, oral arguments and record on appeal filed herein have been considered, and it appears therefrom that the primary issue in this case is the measure of damages suffered by appellants as a result of the wrongful, surreptitious, dishonest, unethical and illegal conduct which the trial court found the appellees guilty of.

The record reflects that the evidence adduced concerning lost profits and therefore-damages was in conflict. The conflict on this narrow issue was resolved in favor of the appellees by the court below sitting as the trier of fact. Thus, while we share the trial court’s view that the conduct of the appellees toward appellants was reprehensible and subject to ethical condemnation, we are nonetheless bound by the rule *173that conflicts in evidence are to be resolved by the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment reviewed herein is

Affirmed.

SPÉCTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Order entered October 27, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00697-CR

ALLEN MAURICE LITTLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-51721-Y

ORDER

On September 2, 2014, this Court adopted the trial court’s finding that court reporter 

Sharon Hazlewood would file the reporter’s record within thirty days of the August 25, 2014 

findings made by the trial court. We ordered Ms. Hazlewood to file the complete reporter’s 

record, including exhibits, by September 26, 2014. When the record was not filed by October 8, 

2014, we ordered Ms. Hazlewood to file the reporter’s record by October 24, 2014. We further 

stated that no extensions would be granted and warned that failure to do so would result in the 

Court ordering that she not sit as a court reporter until the record is filed.

Rather than filing the reporter’s record by October 24, 2014, on Sunday, October 26, 

2014, Ms. Hazlewood filed a request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The 
extension request, which is dated July 25, 2014, asks for an extension until September 1, 2014 to 

file the reporter’s record. We DENY the extension request.

We ORDER Sharon Hazlewood, official court reporter of the Criminal District Court 

No. 7, to file the complete reporter’s record, including exhibits, by NOVEMBER 5, 2014. We 

further ORDER that Sharon Hazlewood not sit as a court reporter until the reporter’s record is 

filed in this appeal.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Michael Snipes, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 7; Sharon Hazlewood, 

official court reporter, Criminal District Court No. 7; the Dallas County Auditor’s Office; and to 

counsel for all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., Inc., Appellant, v. Ruth K. BECK, as Administrator of the Estate of Arthur Frances Beck, Deceased, Appellee. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., Inc., Appellant, v. Ruth K. BECK, individually and as surviving widow of Arthur Frances Beck, Deceased, Appellee.

Nos. 1987, 1988.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 6, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[No. 396-2.

Division Two.

March 22, 1972.]

#### Wayne B. Henderson *et al., Appellants,*v. Ronald Esary *et al., Respondents.*
#### Mrs. Jackie Leverett MUTSCHLER, etc., et al. v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INS. CO., et al.

No. 53933.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: Dr. Frederic W. Brewer and St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. applying for supervisory writ of review, certiorari,' mandamus, prohibition, or other remedial writ.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

SUMMERS, J. In my view the Court of Appeal improperly invoked its supervisory jurisdiction here.
[No. 372-3.

Division Three.

April 7, 1972.]

#### Violet H. Trudell, *Appellant,*v. Board of Directors of Hazelmere School District No. 60 of Ferry County, *Respondent.*