alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dennis Joseph DEMATTIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1000.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 2, 1974.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Kathleen Gallagher, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Stephen V. Rosin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gary Carman, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was found guilty of auto theft and grand larceny. He was sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. On this appeal, he has claimed error upon the admission of his confession into evidence. Appellant urges that the confession was not shown to be voluntary because there was evidence that he had been taking drugs prior to his arrest.

Appellant relies upon Reddish v. State, Fla. 1964, 167 So.2d 858, where the Supreme Court held that the totality of all the circumstances as to an appellant’s physical condition, in combination with the impact of narcotics, are to be considered in determining whether a confession is voluntary. In accordance with the admonition of the Supreme Court, we have considered the totality of the circumstances and find that the evidence clearly supports the trial court’s decision that the confession was voluntary. See Lindsey v. State, 66 Fla. 341, 63 So. 832 (1913); Reynolds v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 222 So.2d 246.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 777 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 777

Recognizing the 66th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human 
          Rights and the celebration of ``Human Rights Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 10, 2014

Mr. Lowenthal (for himself, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. 
 Cicilline, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Esty, Mr. Farr, 
Mr. Gutierrez, Ms. Hahn, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Honda, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. 
Lee of California, Mr. Levin, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McDermott, 
Mr. McGovern, Mr. McNerney, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Peters of California, 
    Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Sherman, and Ms. Speier) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                           on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the 66th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human 
          Rights and the celebration of ``Human Rights Day''.

Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations 
        66 years ago on December 10, 1948, represents the first comprehensive 
        agreement among nations as to the specific rights and freedoms of all 
        human beings;
Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds the basic principles 
        of liberty and freedom enshrined within the United States Constitution 
        and Bill of Rights;
Whereas human rights awareness is essential to the realization of fundamental 
        freedoms and contributes to promoting equality, preventing conflict and 
        human rights violations, and enhancing participation in democratic 
        processes;
Whereas the Department of State has declared that a central goal of United 
        States foreign policy is the promotion of respect for human rights, as 
        embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and
Whereas December 10 of each year is celebrated around the world as ``Human 
        Rights Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the 66th anniversary of the Universal 
        Declaration of Human Rights and the celebration of ``Human 
        Rights Day'';
            (2) supports the ideals of human rights and reaffirms the 
        Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
            (3) encourages all nations to continue working towards 
        freedom, peace, and security, which can be achieved only 
        through democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of 
        law; and
            (4) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        ``Human Rights Day'' and continue their commitment to upholding 
        freedom, democracy, and human rights across the globe.
                                 <all>
```
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 27, 2022

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00208-CV

MICHELLE PERELL, Appellant

V.

DIANA PERELL AND MAX PERELL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-22-02270

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia

Opinion by Justice Molberg

Appellant appeals from the March 8, 2022 order of the Associate Judge for 

the 254th Judicial District Court denying her application for a protective order. 

Unless an associate judge’s order is agreed, a default, or final order where the parties 

waive the right to a de novo hearing before the referring court in writing before the 

start of the hearing conducted by the associate judge, the date the order is signed by 

the referring court is the controlling date for purposes of appeal to this Court. See

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 201.016(a), (b), 201.007(a)(16), 201.013(b). Because the 

appealed order is not agreed, a default, or one where the parties waived their right to 

a de novo hearing, and nothing in the record reflected the referring court has signed 
–2–

the order, we questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal. We directed appellant to 

file, by June 20, a letter brief addressing the Court’s concern with an opportunity for 

appellees to file a response. To date, appellant has not filed a response.

Because the referring court has not signed the order of the associate judge, 

this appeal is premature and we lack jurisdiction. For this reason, we dismiss the 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

220208f.p05 /Ken Molberg//

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MICHELLE PERELL, Appellant

No. 05-22-00208-CV V.

DIANA PERELL AND 

MAX PERELL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-22-02270.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Molberg. Justices Reichek and 

Garcia participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 27th day of July, 2022.
#### Joseph H. CROSBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-279.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 9, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 5, 1978.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, W. C. McLain, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow; and Howard L. Dimmig, II, Legal Intern, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

Appellant Joseph H. Crosby argues that the state did not produce sufficient evidence in this case to sustain a conviction for burglary tools. We agree.

The state filed an information charging appellant with burglary and possession of burglary tools. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence to the effect that appellant and his co-defendant had stolen a purse from a locked car. When the police captured appellant shortly after the burglary, they found two coathangers in the car in which appellant was riding. The prosecution did not present any evidence to show that these coathangers had been used in the burglary or that they had been altered for such a purpose. The officer who found the coathangers only testified that he had in the past used similar hangers to get into locked cars.

A jury found appellant guilty of burglary and possession of burglary tools. Thereafter appellant filed a motion for a new trial which the trial court denied. We believe that the court erred in this ruling.

A conviction for possession of burglary tools can only be sustained in the case of common household tools where there is evidence that the object was in fact used as a burglary tool. *Foster*v. *State,*286 So.2d 549 (Fla.1973). In the present case, there was absolutely no evidence that the coath-angers were used to break into the car. The officer’s testimony only established that they could have been used for such a purpose and not that they were used for that purpose.

In view of what we have said, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand the *1248case for a new trial on the charge relating to possession of burglary tools. We find that the other points which appellant raises have no merit and therefore we affirm his conviction on the burglary charge.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-26-2000             DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-24-2000             SEP-24-2000
<CASH>                                           2,165                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,604                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       400                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     64,259                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               151,219                       0
<PP&E>                                         731,046                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 489,458                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 483,362                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          679,193                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       139,185                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (417,553)                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   483,362                       0
<SALES>                                        153,491                 466,326
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               153,491                 466,326
<CGS>                                          150,060                 464,648
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  251,181                 586,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,257                  11,905
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,460                  30,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (111,407)               (161,765)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (560)                   (164)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (110,847)               (161,601)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (110,847)               (161,601)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0



</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Phillip Ray ALLEN v. Mr. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 62801.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: Phillip Ray Allen, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Richland.

Writ denied.
#### Leon Kirkley CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-458.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 24, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Dale K. Little, Appellant, v Joseph McCoy, as Superintendent of *930Cayuga Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[722 NYS2d 452]

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. “Because relator is not entitled to immediate release, habeas corpus relief does not lie” *(People ex rel. Travis v Coombe,*219 AD2d 881, 882). “Although this Court has the power to convert a petition for a writ of habeas corpus into a CPLR article 78 petition [citation omitted], relator has not requested that relief and on this record we do not consider it appropriate” *(People ex rel. Travis v Coombe, supra,*at 882). The issue raised herein was the subject of a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced by relator in Albany County, and that proceeding was dismissed as moot. We have considered relator’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J. — Habeas Corpus.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Scudder, Burns and Lawton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                           4,223
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,067
<INVENTORY>                                     60,251
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               129,432
<PP&E>                                         373,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                 152,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 397,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,807
<BONDS>                                        120,896
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              347
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     158,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   397,295
<SALES>                                        502,865
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               502,865
<CGS>                                          404,257
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  404,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,208
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,060
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,342
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,627
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,715
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,715
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-42222,  33-41542,  33-41543,  33-59187,  33-60901,  33-60591,  33-82474,  and
333-68399  of Sierra  Health  Services,  Inc.  on Forms S-8 of our report  dated
February 8, 1999  appearing in this Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Sierra Health
Services, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Las Vegas, Nevada
March 15, 1999

<PAGE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-21235 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ADOLFO ANGEL CRAWFORD-AYUSO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CR-194-1

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Adolfo Angel Crawford-Ayuso appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Crawford-Ayuso contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Crawford-Ayuso maintains that heNo. 02-21235 -2- pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment and supervised release which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Crawford-Ayuso acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
#### James H. PRICE v. Mary HOWLAND.

No. 38716.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 222 So.2d 212.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0153 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: CHRISTOPHER J. WEIGAND,

Petit io ner and Appellee, and BRYTANY ANNE CATTANEO,

Respondent and Appellant. ORDER OF MEDIAT OR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parti es having failed to j oint ly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Lynda S. White,** whose name appears next on the list of attorneys desiring app oint me nt a s mediators fo r Domesti c Relat io ns appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appo int ed to co nduct th e mediat io n process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th at th e time peri ods set fo rth in M.R .App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appoint me nt . A true copy

of this order is being mailed to counsel of record f or the parti es, or to th e parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED thi s June 16, 2 021.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court c: Kr istofer S Baughman, Cait lin Terese Pabst, Anna M. Williams, Lynda S. White 06/16/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0153
# C_2022237EN.01005102.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/51

---

Order of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — Advanced Organic Materials v EUIPO — Swiss Pharma International (ADVASTEROL)

(Case T-6/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 237/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Advanced Organic Materials, SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Swiss Pharma International AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 October 2020 (Case R 781/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Swiss Pharma International and Advanced Organic Materials.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Advanced Organic Materials, SA and Swiss Pharma International AG shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Advanced Organic Materials, SA and Swiss Pharma International AG shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from (A)
Consolidated Balance Sheets,  Statements of Operations,  Changes in Stockholders
Equity and Cash Flows and is  qualified in its entirety by reference to such (B)
annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 1997)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                  138,173
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        147,327
<PP&E>                                  8,608
<DEPRECIATION>                          340
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          207,019
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,093,186
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                136,888
<OTHER-SE>                              (1,023,055)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            207,015
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        746,795
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      28,764
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (775,559)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (775,559)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (775,559)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

</TABLE>