alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
256 La. 611

#### Douglas M. JONES v. SOUTHERN TUPELO LUMBER COMPANY, Inc. et al.

No. 50586.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 8, 1970.

In re: Southern Tupelo Lumber Company, Inc., an<i Bituminous Casualty Corporation applying for. certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Livingston. 233 So.2d 264.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue ; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### Lenton CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-976.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 20, 1978.

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Douglas A. Wallace, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, but this case is remanded for resentencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specifically set forth the period of credit timé to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975); *Brooks v. State,*349 So.2d 794 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Moreover the phrase “at hard labor” in the sentence is improper. *Brooks*v. *State, supra.*The appellant does not have to be present at resentencing.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.
#### Jessie Lee JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-813.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 8, 1972.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

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

PIERCE, Chief Judge.

On March 2, 1971, an indictment was filed in the Circuit Court for Collier County,- Florida, charging appellant Jessie Lee Jones with rape. Counsel was appointed to represent him, and at his arraignment he entered a plea of not guilty. On August 23, 1971, Jones appeared before the court with his counsel and his mother, at which time he withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty tó a lesser included offense of assault with intent to commit rape. After pre-sentence investigation, on October 8, 1971, the court sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment in the State Prison. He has appealed the judgment and sentence to this Court.

The Public Defender, appointed to represent him upon this appeal, has filed a brief in this Court on his behalf, stating that he had “carefully examined the record on Appeal and has found nothing which would arguably support the Appeal. He [Jones] was examined at length by the Court and his own attorney. Everything indicated that the plea was voluntarily and freely given. For these reasons Attorney for Appellant Respectively requests to be relieved as Attorney of Record and cite *394as authority, case of Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.]”

The Public Defender served a copy of his said brief upon appellant Jones, and on April 12, 1972, this Court entered its order allowing Jones thirty days within which to file an additional brief, if he so desired, calling this Court’s attention to any matters that he feels should be considered in connection with the appeal in this cause. No such additional brief has been filed.

In justice to appellant, however, we have carefully examined the entire record on file in this Court upon this appeal. The record shows that the prosecuting attorney asked appellant Jones and his mother extensive questions at the time of the acceptance of the guilty plea and it was determined after such questioning that the plea was freely and voluntarily made with knowledge of the consequences.

We find nothing in the record which would warrant or justify this Court in disturbing the judgment. Accordingly the judgment is thereupon

Affirmed.

LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The data reported in this exhibit are based on unaudited  statements but include
all adjustments which the company considers necessary for a fair presentation of
results for this period.

</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000041499
<NAME> THE GILLETTE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             43,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,786,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       57,000
<INVENTORY>                                     1,529,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                5,086,000
<PP&E>                                          5,927,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,396,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,161,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           4,705,000
<BONDS>                                         2,818,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                        1,365,000
<OTHER-SE>                                        936,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,161,000
<SALES>                                         4,156,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                4,156,000
<CGS>                                           1,497,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,497,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,718,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                105,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   833,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                      277,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               556,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (429,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      127,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .12


</TABLE>
258 La. 705

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Tommy Jarrell BARBER v. Louis M. SOWERS, Director, Department of Corrections, State of Louisiana, et al.

No. 51411.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1971.

In re: Tommy Jarrell Barber applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The sentence imposed is not a concurrent sentence; it merely gives credit for time served between “incarceration” and sentence on this charge.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1228 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1228

To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 to provide new job opportunities, 
  effect significant cost savings on Federal construction contracts, 
  promote small business participation in Federal contracting, reduce 
    unnecessary paperwork and reporting requirements, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 14 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

Mr. Brown (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Mack, Mr. Burns, 
 Mr. Smith, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Craig) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                       Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 to provide new job opportunities, 
  effect significant cost savings on Federal construction contracts, 
  promote small business participation in Federal contracting, reduce 
    unnecessary paperwork and reporting requirements, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Davis-Bacon Repeal Act''.

SEC. 2. DAVIS-BACON ACT OF 1931 REPEALED.

    The Act of March 3, 1931, entitled ``An Act relating to the rate of 
wages for laborers and mechanics employed on public buildings of the 
United States and the District of Columbia by contractors and 
subcontractors, and for other purposes'' (40 U.S.C. 276a--276a-5), 
commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon Act, is repealed.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The provisions of this Act shall take effect thirty days after the 
date of enactment of this Act but shall not affect any contract in 
existence on that date or made pursuant to invitations for bids 
outstanding on that date.

                                 <all>
```
#### MacDONALD *v.*STATE

[No. 143,

September Term, 1961.]

*392
      *Decided January 23, 1962.*

The cause was submitted to Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Prescott, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.

Submitted on brief by *Donald S. Hurwits,*for appellant.

Submitted on brief by *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Joseph D. Buscher, Special Assistant Attorney General, Edward B. Rybcsynski, Special Attorney, Saul A. Harris*and *Julius A. Romano, State’s Attorney*and *Assistant State’s Attorney,*respectively, for Baltimore City, for appellee.

PER Curiam.

Convicted of disturbing the peace and assault upon one Hutchins, the appellant contends that the court committed reversible error in failing to sustain an objection to a leading question propounded by the State to a State’s witness. We find no merit in the contention for two reasons. In the first place, the question objected to, as to who was present when the appellant struck Hutchins, followed positive testimony by the witness that he saw the appellant strike Hutchins, which had come in without objection. The question objected to was not designed to supply an answer to the question propounded and hence was not leading. *Harward v. Harward,*173 Md. 339, 350. In the second place, the court in effect sustained the objection when it commented: “Ask him who was there.” The question was reframed, and the original question, containing the reference to a striking, was never answered.

*Judgment affirmed.*
**Exhibit 23.1** 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS** 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (No. 333-848, No. 333-76851, No. 333-79337, No.333-82257, No. 333-38860 and No. 333-66068) of PC Mall, Inc. (formerly IdeaMall,Inc. and Creative Computers, Inc.) of our report dated February 3, 2003,relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, whichappears in this Form 10-K.PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPLos Angeles, CaliforniaMarch 27, 2003
Fire Chief, Sitka Fire Department AI Stevens Assistant Fire Chief, Sitka Fire Dept. Dave Miller Sincerely, Please consider the impact of all the fire departments that benefit from the services that Harris Aircraft provides as well as the emergency disaster response needs. Thank you. Without the continued services of Harris Aircraft ..the Sitka Fire Department could not afford to help the State of Alaska in providing the required mandatory training. The State of Alaska would have to send in instructors and resources from the interior resulting in lost time to all who attend the training. As the Emergency Managers for the City and Borough of Sitka, these outlying communities also fall under our responsibility for notification and assistance during major disasters. Harris Aircraft plays a vital role in resources and personnel in the event a community requires
immediate aid. This training is provided to the smaller fire departments of Petersburg, Kake, Gustavus, Hoonah and the communities of Prince of Wales. Without the services of Harris Air, we could not help these smaller communities due to the amount of time required to travel to these locations. For example, Alaska Airlines to Petersburg is one days travel to and one days travel from

. Utilizing' Harris Air, it is a simple 20 minute flight. The short time flights are not a matter of convenience as you may think but a matter of response. All of these communities have only one fire dept. including Sitka. These fire depts. depend on each and everyone of their volunteer members to be available for emergency calls as much as possible. Two days travel via Alaska Airlines is not acceptable. The members of the Sitka Fire Department are in full support of Harris Aircraft Service, Inc. in obtaining an Air Carrier Certificate. Subject: Support for Harris Aircraft Services To: Whom it may concern Department of Transportation ,. 

### ~FIREDEPARTMENT

209 LAKE ST. . SITKA, ALASKA . 99835

907 .. 747-32\~gust 

## so", 2014 

# City and Borough of 

# Sitka
#### Troy Lee THOMPSON, Appellant, v. William R. BROOKER, Appellee.

No. 69-472.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 1, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2021382EN.01002304.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-37/21) (1)

(2021/C 382/32)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

---
#### S. P. J. CORPORATION, a Florida corporation and Wellington Industries, Inc., a Florida corporation, Petitioners, v. Milton KELNER et al., Respondents.

No. 41712.

Supreme Court of Florida,

Nov. 1, 1972.

*374Burnett Roth, Miami Beach, for petitioners.

Milton Kelner, Miami, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 252 So.2d 870. Petition for writ of certiorari was granted, without argument, based on decisional conflict on the question of standing to challenge the legality of a zoning ordinance. That conflict has since been resolved in the recent decision of this Court in Renard v. Dade County.1 The opinion of this Court in the *Renard*case supports the majority view in the decision herein sought to be reviewed.

Accordingly, the decision under review is approved and the writ discharged.

It is so ordered.

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

1

. 261 So.2d 832 (Fla.1972).
EPA

- 420 -B- 11

- 00 3

January 2011

Highway and Nonroad Diesel Fuel

Standards

Who Covered

Fuel 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

**Highway**

**Diesel**

**Fuel** 80% 15 ppm/

20% 500 ppm 100% 15 ppm

(including small refiner fuel)

Large

Refiners/

Importers **NR** 500 500 500 15 15 15 15 15

Large

Refiners/

Importers **LM** 500 500 500 500 500 15 15 15

**NRLM w/**

**credits (not in**

**NE/MA or AK)** HS HS HS 500 500 500 500 15

Small

Refiners **NRLM**

**(not in NE/MA,**

**w/ approval in**

**AK)** HS HS HS 500 500 500 500 15

Transmix

Processor

& In

- use **NR**

**(not in NE/MA**

**or AK)** HS HS HS 500 500 500 500 15

Transmix

Processor

& In

- use **LM**

**(not in NE/MA**

**or AK)** HS HS HS 500 500 500 500 15

**ECA Marine**

**Fuel** ( no EPA sulfur level requirements ) 1,000

**2006 dates for HW diesel fuel** : June 1 for refiners/importers, September 1 for downstream

parties, and October 15 for retailers and wholesale purchaser -consumers

**2010 dates for HW diesel fuel** : As of the following dates, all HW diesel fuel must meet the 15

ppm standard

- June 1 for refiners/importers, October 1 for downstream parties, and December

1 for retailers and wholesale purchaser

- consumers (WPCs)

**2007 dates for NRLM diesel fuel** : June 1 for refiners, downstream requirements for NE/MA

area 

### * only (August 1 for terminals, October 1 for retailers/WPCs, and December 1 for in

- use)

**2010+ dates for NRLM diesel fuel** : June 1 for refiners, August 1 for terminals, October 1 for

retailers/WPCs, and December 1 for in

- use

**2014 dates for ECA Marine fuel:** June 1 for refiners, August 1 for terminals, October 1 for

retailers/WPCs, and December 1 for in

- use

 Anti** 

**- downgrading provisions begin October 15, 2006**  **

* **NOTE**

- No small refiner or credit NRLM can be used in the NE/MA area. Thus, the large

refiner NRLM standard is also the in

- use standard in the NE/MA area.
#### SOLF *v.*STATE

[No. 107

September Term, 1961.]

*193
      *Decided December 7, 1961.*

Submitted to Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Prescott, HornEy and Marbury, JJ.

Submitted on brief by *John W. Mitchell*for the appellant.

Submitted on brief by *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Douis F. Schmidt, Special Assistant Attorney General,*and *William F. Kahler, State’s Attorney for Prince George’s County,*for the appellee.

PER Curiam.

The appellant (Lena Katherine Solf) was convicted, with her son and an acquaintance, of armed robbery. At the trial, the victim, who positively identified her in open court, was allowed to testify over objection that he had previously identified the accused from a picture of her mingled with some fifty other photographs shown him by the police. No effort was made to show (on a motion for a mistrial or otherwise) that the appellant had been prejudiced by the introduction of the cumulative evidence. The claim on this appeal is that since the extrajudicial identification was not necessary to establish identification, the admission thereof was reversible error. The contention is without merit. Clearly, it was not error to admit into evidence the extrajudicial identification of the accused. *Proctor v. State,*223 Md. 394; *Bulluck v. State,*219 Md. 67; *Judy v. State,*218 Md. 168; *Basoff v. State,*208 Md. 643. Nor was the additional proof of identity prejudicial under the circumstances. See *Cook v. State,*225 Md. 603; *Contee v. State,*223 Md. 575; *Lusby v. State,*217 Md. 191.

*Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2021128EN.01002201.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2021 — Pharmacie populaire — La Sauvegarde SCRL v État belge

(Case C-52/21)

(2021/C 128/27)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Pharmacie populaire — La Sauvegarde SCRL

Respondent: État belge

Question referred

Is Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding legislation, or a national practice, under which companies established in one Member State which use services of companies established in another Member State are required, in order to avoid a corporation tax levy of 100 % or 50 % of the sums invoiced by the latter, to complete and submit to the tax authorities individual fee forms and summary statements relating to those expenses whereas, if they use the services of resident companies, they are under no such obligation in order to avoid that levy?

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00281-CV

SID ARISMENDEZ

v.

BRENDA NORIEGA

On appeal from the

343rd District Court of Bee County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B-12-1115-CV-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 7, 2013.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7758

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WARREN CLIFTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-98-285; CA-00-607-3-2-V) Submitted: August 30, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren Clifton, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Warren Clifton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on Clifton’s motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We previously granted a certificate of appealability on Clifton’s claim that counsel was ineffective under United States v. Peak , 992 F.2d 39 (4th Cir. 1993). Upon review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. 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.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. CP17-495-000; CP17-494-000]

The environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) along with representatives of the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will meet with representatives of the Karuk Tribe to discuss the proposed Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific Connector Pipeline Projects. The meeting will be held at the location and time listed below:

Karuk Tribe—Headway Building, 64236 Second Avenue, Happy Camp, CA 96039, Phone: (530) 493-5322, Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 3:30 p.m. PDT

Members of the public and intervenors in the referenced proceeding may attend and observe this meeting; however, participation will be limited to tribal representatives and agency personnel. If tribal representatives decide to disclose information about a specific location which could create a risk or harm to an archeological site or Native American cultural resource, the public will be excused for that portion of the meeting. A summary of the meeting will be entered into the Commission's administrative record.

                    If you plan to attend this meeting, please contact Mr. John Peconom, Environmental Project Manager at (202) 502-6352 or                     *John.Peconom@ferc.gov.*

Dated: July 10, 2018.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-15127 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P