alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas Keller WHITE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-270.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 26, 1971.

Thomas Keller White, in pro. per.

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

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. *602California, 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 filed his response 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 appealed is affirmed.
### Larry Greene

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

777 12 th Street, 3 rd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814-1908 916/874-4800 * 916/874-4899 fax www.airquality.org May 18, 2009

Mr. Michael Guzzetta Stationary Source Division California Air Resources Board PO Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revision, SMAQMD Rule 466

Dear Mr. Guzzetta:

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of Rule 466, Solvent Cleaning, for revision to the State Implementation Plan. Rule 466 was adopted by the District’s Board of Directors on May 23, 2002. Please also forward the information for this submittal to U.S. EPA.

If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at (916) 874-4851.

Sincerely,

Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. Program Coordinator (sent via e-mail)

Attachments:

1. SIP Checklist Rule 466 2. New Rule 466 3. Public Notice Evidence 4. Resolution 5. Public Comments 6. Rule Evaluation Form 7. Board Memo 8. Staff Report (includes responses to comments)
#### TREASURE, INC., d/b/a Bonfire Restaurant & Lounge, Petitioner, v. STATE BEVERAGE DEPARTMENT of Florida, Respondent.

No. 68-928.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 2, 1970.

Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward, Miami Beach, for petitioner.

J. Victor Africano, Hallandale, Maurice M. Paul, Orlando, for respondent.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on March 14, 1969 (221 So.2d 244) denying the petition for writ of certiorari to the State Beverage Department of Florida in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by appeal and certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed June 17, 1970 (238 So.2d 580) and mandate dated September 14, 1970 reversed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings;

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the final order of this court heretofore issued in this cause on April 14, 1969 is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed March 14, 1969 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, the order of the State Beverage Department of Florida dated October 3, 1968, sought to be reviewed herein, is quashed and the cause *529is remanded to the State Beverage Department of Florida for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the State Beverage Department (Rule 3.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
ATTACHMENT V 

Spectra
of *

Tosa ¥URNYANVY VRS
mS : gE | : P Z é he ght 3 5-4 ’ : : 4 ay
ey. £ VEY, *

A
.

a-

icly

bout publ

iona
available records like the one shown here.

d and released by

=
>
,
.
cd 4 "4
“ <

bRHAR HOY
“4 fh p ro ‘ a ‘

ine

ec be ' xr - t
pot ‘ ; :
v: a s
“o¥.... , > y

’

eed dpe oe

=
O
=
4?)
|
wed
Y
=
=
i=
<
*
as &
~ Oo
£o
®
~
Oo
©
2]
®
2
a x
©
| =
<

not the U.S. Census Bureau.
rchives.gov for more informat

isit http://www.a fe |

iona

Historic census records are ma
the Nat

V
J

~~ SEO srq r

~

s

~ A'2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

z Q

0 2

il, PHOS" {\



### J U N 1 1 2010 AIR ND OFF I CE



### Donald C. Gadbury Director, National TRU Program 

### Carlsbad Field Office Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221

Dear Mr. Gadbury:

This is in response to your June 10, 2010, request for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) concurrence on the Department of Energy's (DOE) draft certification expansion letter of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP), transuranic (TRU) waste characterization program at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) for contact-handled (CH) debris and solid waste. The expansion of AMWTP's TRU waste characterization certification is necessary to allow AMWTP to add Hanford's CH TRU legacy debris waste from MPFPD, M231ZD, M325D, and RLMPFPCD waste streams to the existing BN-510 debris waste stream. Your request is in accordance with the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) procedures that are intended to ensure that DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site certifications correlate appropriately with EPA approvals for waste characterization activities at DOE TRU waste generator sites.

DOE's draft recertification expansion of the AMWTP results from EPA's June 10 approval of the Tier 1 change approving the addition of the above Hanford legacy debris waste in approximately 1,034 55-gallon drums overpacked in 85-gallon containers. In August 2009, DOE's Carlsbad Field Office audited for annual recertification characterization activities for CH debris waste (S5000) and solid waste (S3000). EPA issued a baseline approval of the waste characterization program at the AMWTP on October 3, 2006 (See A-98-49; II-A4-66 in the EPA Air pocket). On March 16, 2009, EPA concurred with the draft certification expansion to implement a modified real time radiography operations procedure for boxes. On February 17, 2010, EPA concurred with draft recertification of AMWTP's TRU waste characterization program. Nothing has changed since that concurrence. We concur that DOE's draftrecertification expansion letter comports with all of EPA's existing approvals for contacthandled TRU waste (debris and solids) at AMWTP.

Intemet Address (URL) - http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable OiI Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft recertification

expansion letter for AMWTP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462.

Sincerely,

Tom Peake, Director Center for Waste Management and Regulations

cc: Electronic Distribution Alton Harris, DOE HQ Jerry Wells, DOE ID Vernon Daub, CBFO Ava Holland, CBFO J R Stroble, CBFO Courtland Fesmire, CBFO Norma Castaneda, CBFO Kathy Leonard, CBFO Martin Navarrete, CBFO Dennis Miehls, CBFO Allison Pangle, CTAC Wayne Ledford, CTAC Steve Zappe, NMED
# EXHIBIT 1

Rules Adopted by the State

A. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

a. BART Rule
b. Public and EPA Comments

c. DEP Response to Comments

# A. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)Response to EPA comments on the Florida BART rule 62-296.340, F.A.C.

– December 12, 2006 Letter from Kay Prince, Chief, Air Planning Branch to Joseph Kahn, Director, Division of Air Resource Management.

Two comments were made in the EPA letter. The first comment notes that the compliance date for BART, as described in the Florida rule, is acceptable, but that formally the federal requirement is that compliance should be no later than five years after approval of the implementation plan revision.

Response by DEP: Had the SIP revision been approved prior to the end of December 2008, then the compliance date in the Florida BART rule would not have met the federal requirement. However, the timing of the SIP submittal by the state, and approval of the revision by EPA, make this potentiality not possible.

The second comment by EPA reminds the DEP that proper documentation of the modeling exemption
threshold for BART of 0.5 deciviews must be included in the SIP submittal.

Response by DEP: This documentation has been included the SIP submittal.
#### Ernest WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-491.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 15, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
ON REHEARING

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6365

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-6372

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief

District Judge. (2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1)

Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: October 18, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Terrence Cross, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro 

Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

William Terrence Cross appeals the district court’s 

orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion and 

motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We 

affirm the denial of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) relief for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Cross, 

No. 2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 19, 2012).* Because the 

district court lacked the authority to consider Cross’s motion 

for reconsideration, see United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 

235-36 (4th Cir. 2010), we affirm the district court’s order 

denying the motion. 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

 * In our previous opinion, the date of the district court’s 

order was incorrect. The opinion after rehearing corrects the 

date.
#### Mitchell McNEIL v. STATE.

No. 38733.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
#### James Patrick MEISNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-127.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District,

May 23, 1972.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and John W. Watson, III, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
#### Matthew Lee DIXON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 71-63, 71-72.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 28, 1971.

*595Norman Francis Haft, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Legal Intern, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks review of an order summarily denying his petition filed pursuant to Rule 1.850 CrPR, 33 F.S.A.

The appellant was charged with the crime of murder in the first degree on January 10, 1967, to which he pleaded not guilty on February 16, 1967. The cause came on for trial, at which the appellant in person and with counsel withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty on May 24, 1967. He was questioned by both the trial judge and the prosecuting attorney concerning the circumstances of his plea and the possible consequences thereof.1 He was incarcerated from January 16, 1967 to August 10, 1967 when he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to life in prison. On December 10, 1970, the appellant filed a motion to vacate pursuant to Rule 1.850 CrPR, alleging he was under the influence of drugs at the time of pleading guilty to such an extent that his faculties were impaired so as to make said plea involuntary. The trial court, after examination of the motion and court file, entered the order appealed.

Both counsel have called to our attention the following cases; Coates v. United States, 1959, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 273 F.2d 514; Hansford v. United States, 1966, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 387, 365 F.2d 920; Manley v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 396 F.2d 699. We have examined these authorities and, on the basis of the record before this court, we do not find them applicable. An examination of the record also discloses no basis to disturb the trial court’s ruling, in light of the failure of the record to disclose any facts that would indicate the appellant was under the influence of drugs at the time of his plea. United States v. Sprenz, 6th Cir. 1962, 304 F.2d 525; Tucker v. United States, 6th Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 655. We would also be remiss if we did not point out that the petitioner did not complain to the trial court of the use of drugs between the date of his plea and the date sentence was entered, nor did he avail himself of the Rule 1 petition until some three and one-half years after his plea in a case in which he was facing a capital sentence. In this connection, attention is called to Pait v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 15; Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 85; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 784; Goodall v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 263; Ersek v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 481; O’Fallon v. State, Fla.App., 239 So.2d 872; North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162.

*596Wherefore, for the above reasons, we find that the trial judge was eminently correct in denying the relief sought on the record as then presented to him, and therefore the order here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. This interrogation met the tests laid down in Garcia v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 300.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary  financial  information
extracted from the condensed consolidated balance sheet
of Dictaphone Corporation at September 30, 1998 and the
condensed  consolidated statement of operations for the
9 months ended  September  30, 1998 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               4,230
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       85,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                         2,639
<INVENTORY>                                         54,373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   152,640
<PP&E>                                              63,889
<DEPRECIATION>                                      32,812
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     453,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               83,032
<BONDS>                                            357,901
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               23,107
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               130
<OTHER-SE>                                         (25,234)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       453,457
<SALES>                                            153,419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   245,686
<CGS>                                              137,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      252,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  29,632
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (27,193)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           253
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (26,940)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (26,940)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### Alice Winters BEATTY, a widow and a single woman, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Joe D. SMITH and Billie Smith, his wife, Respondents.

No. 42525.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 23, 1973.

Petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the basis of an insufficient record in support of the petition. See Article V, Section 4(2), F.S.A.; Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., 177 So.2d 221 (Fla.1965); Fla.App. Rule 4.5(c)(6), 32 F.S.A.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ViroPharma Incorporated (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Vincent J. Milano                                                    
|Vincent J. Milano                                                        
|President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|                                                                         
|July 28, 2008
#### Terry L. WHEELER, Appellant, v. Ronald A. WHEELER, Appellee.

No. 72-781.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 18, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Fitzgeralds Gaming
Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended June 29, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Philip D. Griffith, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                 
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of
the dates indicated and result of operations of the Company for the
periods indicated.



| | /s/ Philip D. Griffith
Philip D. Griffith
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 8, 2003
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          64,260
<SECURITIES>                                    51,485
<RECEIVABLES>                                  142,046
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               260,976
<PP&E>                                         311,469
<DEPRECIATION>                                 263,111
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 312,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          546,043
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,247
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,252,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   312,423
<SALES>                                      1,066,060
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,066,060
<CGS>                                          339,630
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  870,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,070
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                189,613
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            189,613
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   189,613
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Jack Wright TWINING v. WAINWRIGHT.

No. 38026.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
=e a SORES PK 2 TO

a

Y " p | Mar : Lirn LT
ae
f Lt ‘
: o “4 Sheer rh ehliar Je c

4

SLtprTM 7, P
"4 ‘Gi 2th Os y4c
AKL EKW 4 Te, ned

A tie

/ 4
Savi ita Ws eae avi | 2
; fy i ;
tbe WLAL yp bter/s ook ar
be?) ah Ait Moped

DF 1B? E28 22

UG YOR RSS '/25
: (

- - e f (
Via 4 BPOCE pore Are

~
;

. ae Fa “ oo:
y rpre *

|
Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

\
‘
#### Lenzo GROOMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-953.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 3, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Joseph GRIFFIN, Petitioner, v. Donald S. GENUNG, Sheriff for Pinellas County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 72-990.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 30, 1972.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### Louis C. PHILIPS v. Paul C. CROMER.

No. 62868.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: Louis C. Philips, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 360 So.2d 567.

Denied.