alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ray E. BRADLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-191.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 12, 1968.

Mitchell M. Goldman, Eugene P. Spell-man, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, who was defendant below, was indicted on a charge of perjury. Based upon the indictment, the state attorney filed an information in the Criminal Court of Record pursuant to § 32.18, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., accusing the defendant of having given false testimony before the grand jury, which constitutes an offense as provided in § 837.02, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Subsequently, upon the motion of the state, this information was quashed and a new information filed. The second information was also based upon the indictment pursuant to § 32.18(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and was indistinguishable from the first information except for one additional clause alleging that the defendant was under oath at the time he testified falsely. Defendant’s motion to quash the information was denied, and the cause proceeded to trial. Defendant here appeals the judgment and sentence imposed.

We are of the opinion that the recent case of State v. Hill, Fla.App.1968, - So.2d -, is controlling for the purposes of the instant appeal. The Hill case stands for the proposition that, to be valid, an information must be based either upon a valid indictment or upon sworn testimony.

Appellee argues that the indictment in this case is sufficient because it is not so vague, indistinct or indefinite as to mislead the accused or embarrass him in the preparation of a defense. See: § 906.25, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. But, it is clear that an indictment will not be upheld were it entirely omits an indispensable allegation. Walker v. State, 119 Fla. 240, 161 So. 278 (1935). It is essential in a charge of perjury to allege that the accused was under oath at the time of the commission of the offense. Gordon v. State, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 524; Walker v. State, supra.

*141As the indictment in this case is incapable of supporting a valid information, and as there is no showing- that the information filed was based upon sworn testimony, appellant’s conviction must be reversed. Having so decided, we deem it unnecessary to discuss appellant’s other contentions.

Reversed.
Exhibit 23.3 - Report of Independent Accountants

To The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Congoleum Corporation

   We have audited the statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity
and cash flows of Congoleum Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1995,
which are included on pages 6 through 25 of the 1997 Annual Report to
Shareholders of Congoleum Corporation and incorporated by reference herein. We
have also audited the financial statement schedule listed in the Index as Item
14(a) for the year ended December 31, 1995. These financial statements and
financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and
financial statement schedule based on our audits.

   We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

   In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the results of its operations, its stockholders' equity,
and its cash flows for the year ended December 31, 1995, in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles. In addition, in our opinion, the
financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to
the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material
respects, the information required to be included therein.


COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
February 20, 1996
#### Horace E. DELIFUS v. STATE.

No. 35996.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion. So.2d 435. 191
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reigart Santmyers, 70; Restaurateur, War Hero

The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973); Jan 31, 1964; 

ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Washington Post

pg. C3
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

BUREAU OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMJ'r\ERC;3 

JULIUS KLEIN, Director 

STATISTICAL ABSTRACT 

OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

1921 

FORTY-FOURTH NUMBER 

Compiled by EDWARD WHITNEY 

of tlJC 

Library_/,,,,· · · 

PRICE, 75 CENTS (PAPER COVERS) 

Sold 0111y by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office 

Washington, D. C. 

WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1922 
No. 168.-BEET AND CANE, SUGAR AND MOLASSES: QUAN'rITIEs Pno~ DUCED IN 'l'HlD UNI'l'ED STA'l'ES, 1852 '1'0 1922. 

[Sources: Cnne sugar in Louisiana, 1903-11 to 1900-10, from Willett & Gray; beginning with 1911-12 from the Departmont of Agricnltme. Cane sugar in "Other States," from Willett & Gray, 1003-4 to 1917-18; later years from the Department of Agriculture. All other figures of cane-sugar and 

molnsses production prior to 1015-lu are those of A. Bouchereau, New Orleans, exoept that for census yeurs and 1898-99 they arc those of the Census Bureau and snbsegu<lntly are those of the 

Department of Agriculture._ Beet-s11g1tr production for 1897-98 and for l!JOl-2 1tncl later years from 

reports of the Department of Agriculture; for other years from Willett & Gray.} 

Cane sugar. Molasses. I 

Year 

ended Otller Beet sugar. Other 

March- Louisiana. Southern Total. Louisiana. Southern Total. 

States. States. 

Poiinds. Pounds. Poiinds. Poimds. Gallons. Gtillons. Gallons. 

1852-18602_ 313,341,526 17,885,898 331,2~7,·123 20,0:-rn, 111 1,065,213 21,097,930 1861-18702. 126,548,173 5, 8Sl, 700 132,429,873 a3g5, 000 s, 0,1s, 261 951,954 9,000 215 1871-18802. 159,125,435 8,975,100 168,100,535 851, 2(10 ll, 096, 738 1,213,302 12,310 040 1881-16902. 267,329, 637 14,671,650 282,001,287 2, 3!"i3, 568 14,737, 03-1 3,800,728 18,537,762 1891-18952. 527,509,180 13,775,473 Ml, 284,654 27,272,000 21,277,179 6,124,752 27,401,930 1896-19002 . 547,151,486 10,328,461 5t>7, 479, 947 95,243,615 20, tl{il, 21H 6,431,452 27,092,662 1901-190fi2. 661,4M,OB6 20,172,458 681, 636,489 &'38, 7211, 619 26, 9[i3, 377 7,718,527 34,671,902 1906-19102. 707, 840, ODO 427,776,000 735, 61ti,OOO 879, ·105, 532 24, 982,24'! 6,2fi,i,4H6 31,246,748 1911-1915t. 471,738,000 16,432,102 488,170,192 1, 363, 067, 200 25,540,900 10,804,632 86,345,536 1915-16 ••.. 275,000,000 42,240,000 277, 210,, 000 1, 748J,140,000 15,230,000 (") ................... 1916-17 •... 607, 800, 000 414,000,000 621,800,0flO l,fi41,314,000 30,387,000 (5) 

1917-18 •.•. 487,200,000 44 5()0 16() 491,700,160 1,530,414,000 30,728,000 25,G22,811 1918-llL .•. 561,800,000 4 7'.ooo:ooo 568,800,000 1,521,900,000 28,040,000 25,584,000 1919-20 •... 242,000,000 2,250,000 2,H, 250,000 1,452,902,000 12,991,000 34,511,000 1920-216 338,254, 000 13,974,000 352, 22s, ono 2, 180, 042, 000 16,857,000 38,980,000 1921-22 G::: 534,000,000 6,5U,OOO 5!0,541,000 2,021,764,000 22,568,000 41,467,000 

1 Fignres for molasses for 1918-19 for" Other Southern States" relate to sirup only. llAveragefortheperiod. Bl864tol870. t'.l'exas only. 6 No data. a Preliminary figures. 

56,350,811 

53,633,000 

47,502,000 

55,837,000 

64,035,000
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1568 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1568

 To make technical corrections to the Pay Our Military Act to include 
    midshipmen at the United States Merchant Marine Academy who are 
              appointed as midshipmen in the Navy Reserve.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 7, 2013

 Mr. Boozman (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, and Ms. Collins) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To make technical corrections to the Pay Our Military Act to include 
    midshipmen at the United States Merchant Marine Academy who are 
              appointed as midshipmen in the Navy Reserve.

    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 ``Pay Our Military Technical 
Corrections Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MIDSHIPMEN AT THE UNITED STATES 
              MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY.

    (a) In General.--Section 2 of the Pay Our Military Act (Public Law 
113-39) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(including 
                those specified in section 51311(b) of title 46, United 
                States Code)'' after ``reserve components thereof''; 
                and
                    (B) in paragraph (2)--
                            (i) by striking ``(and the Department'' and 
                        inserting ``(the Department'';
                            (ii) by inserting ``and the Department of 
                        Transportation in the case of the United States 
                        Merchant Marine Academy'' after ``Coast 
                        Guard''; and
                            (iii) by inserting ``or those in training 
                        for such service'' before the semicolon; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the 
                end and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to 
        matters concerning the United States Merchant Marine 
        Academy.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if enacted as part of the Pay Our Military Act (Public 
Law 113-39).
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

PERSONNEL GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. AND AFFILIATES

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 Personnel Group of America,
Inc.(the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, James C. Hunt, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies 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/ James C. Hunt





James C. Hunt
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003


33
December 14, 2015 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 -' .-..--

Subject: Requestfor Extension of Exemption No. 10183A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26027 DearSir/Madam: Please accept this letter as FrontierAirlines' request to extend Exemption No. 10183, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26027. The current exemption permits exemption from 14 CFR 91.203(a) and (b) and 47.49 to the extent necessaryto allowtemporary operation of U.S. registered aircraft in domestic airline operations withoutthe Aircraft Registration orthe Airworthiness Certificate on board the aircraft. FrontierAirlines, Inc. is confidentthat'granting an extension ofthe current Exemption No. 10183, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26027, would not reduce the level of safety, nor have an adverse impact on the interest ofthe aircraft owners orthe government agencies. Frontier asserts that granting this extension is in the public interest since it will allow FrontierAirlines, Inc. to continue to provide reliable and timely service to the flying public and shippers by reducing the time that aircraft are out of service. Please contact Captain William Wood, Airbus Program Manager, at 720.209.7112 with any questions you may have.

Cc: W. Wood G. Ackerman · 

### R. Steele · 

### D. Wade G. Appling J. Mclaughlin
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1636 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1636

To redesignate certain facilities of the National Aeronautics and Space 
                            Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 31, 2013

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To redesignate certain facilities of the National Aeronautics and Space 
                            Administration.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF DRYDEN FLIGHT RESEARCH CENTER.

    (a) Redesignation.--The National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Center in Edwards, 
California, is redesignated as the ``NASA Neil A. Armstrong Flight 
Research Center''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the flight research 
center referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``NASA Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center''.

SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION OF WESTERN AERONAUTICAL TEST RANGE.

    (a) Redesignation.--The National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) Western Aeronautical Test Range in California is 
redesignated as the ``NASA Hugh L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the test range referred 
to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``NASA 
Hugh L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range''.
                                 <all>
```
* 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 February 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40204 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HECTOR RAMOS-MENDIOLA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-1287-1

-------------------- Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Hector Ramos-Mendiola (Ramos) appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to possession of more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute. Ramos argues for the first time on appeal that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a condition of supervised release that requires him to cooperate in the collection of his DNA. Ramos’s claim is not ripe for review. See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu , 428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir. 2005), petitionNo. 05-40204 -2- for cert. filed (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to review this claim, and this portion of the appeal is dismissed. Ramos correctly notes that his argument, made for the first time on appeal, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him because 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). Ramos’s conviction is affirmed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
oan DEPARTMENT OF COA env or rmc-census 93 orm ao
rt Pee ‘| FOURTEENTH CENSUS OF THE WNITED STATES: 1920—POPULATION [Ehumenanion Distaict No_aL62 2).

fn OTR sin oy Efi the uae oF weferonaeo etact 22d val aww ecias) WA, OF OY gl
‘Ng mitre tae UMD BY OHNE nnn or alban ee
os r oe = oo

{Bead "le

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

Vist t/a archives gov for more formation about publ avaiable record ike the one shown here
EIEIO eer St ee ae

ES ipa SL

Si

a
aaa

SES

att
a
suas
Rt}

tu

ion
bbdciel
na
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #15610 and #15611; Maryland Disaster Number MD-00037]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Maryland dated 07/25/2018. *Incident:*
                         Severe Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         05/27/2018.
 DATES: Issued on 07/25/2018. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         09/24/2018. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         04/25/2019.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Baltimore City, Howard. *Contiguous Counties:* Maryland: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Frederick, Montgomery, Prince George's. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.875Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.938Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
7.220Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.610Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.610Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15610 6 and for economic injury is 15611 0. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Maryland. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Dated: July 25, 2018. Linda E. McMahon, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2018-16542 Filed 8-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### William H. RICHARDSON, Katherine F. Richardson and Royal Motel, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Saul COOPER and Ida Cooper, espoused, Appellees.

No. 351.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 10, 1967.

Albert Yurko, Orlando, for appellants.

William S. Blalock, of Kirkland Johnson-- & Blalock, and Leo W. Haymans, of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, Orlando, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, William H. Richardson- and Royal Motel, Inc., appeal from an order-granting summary judgment for the defendants, Saul Cooper and Ida Cooper.

The court has carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs and oral argument of counsel for the parties. From-such consideration we find no reversible.error.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., ANDREWS, J., and: WILLSON, JESSE H., Associate Judge, concur.
SSMSIPfinalaction_ListbyRegionplus_2015‐05‐22.docx1List of EPA’s Final Actions for All Affected StatesEPARegion StateEPA’s Final Actionon Petition, to Grantor Deny, in Whole orin PartDoes EPA’s final action include aSIP call for SSM provisions?SSM provisions areaddressed in final action’sprepublication version, undersection IX, at subsection...I MaineGrant Yes B.1 (p. 448)New HampshireDeny No B.2 (p. 449)Rhode IslandGrant Yes B.3 (p. 451)II New Jersey Partially grant,partially deny Yes C (p. 451)III DelawareGrant Yes D.1 (p. 453)District of Columbia Partially grant,partially deny Yes D.2 (p. 454)VirginiaGrant Yes D.3 (p. 456)West VirginiaGrant Yes D.4 (p. 457)IV AlabamaGrant Yes E.1 (p. 460)FloridaGrant Yes E.2 (p. 461)GeorgiaGrant Yes E.3 (p. 463)Kentucky Partially grant,partially denyYes (for State, not for JeffersonCounty) E.4, E.5(pp. 464, 465)MississippiGrant Yes E.6 (p. 466)North CarolinaGrant Yes (for State and Forsyth County) E.7, E.8(pp. 468, 468)South Carolina Partially grant,partially deny Yes E.9 (p. 469)TennesseeGrantYes (for State, Knox County andShelby County)E.10, E.11, E.12(pp. 471, 472, 473)V IllinoisGrant Yes F.1 (p. 474)IndianaGrant Yes F.2 (p. 475)Michigan Grant Yes F.3 (p. 477)MinnesotaGrant Yes F.4 (p. 478)Ohio Partially grant,partially deny Yes F.5 (p. 478)VI ArkansasGrant Yes G.1 (p. 480)LouisianaGrant Yes G.2 (p. 481)SSMSIPfinalaction_ListbyRegionplus_2015‐05‐22.docx2EPARegion StateEPA’s Final Actionon Petition, to Grantor Deny, in Whole orin PartDoes EPA’s final action include aSIP call for SSM provisions?SSM provisions areaddressed in final action’sprepublication version, undersection IX, at subsection...New MexicoGrantYes (for State and AlbuquerqueBernalillo County) G.3, G.4 (pp. 483, 484)OklahomaGrant Yes G.5 (p. 485)TexasNot applicableYes G.6 (p. 486)VII Iowa Partially grant,partially deny Yes H.1 (p. 487)KansasGrant Yes H.2 (p. 488)Missouri Partially grant,partially deny Yes H.3 (p. 489)NebraskaDenyNo (for State and LincolnLancaster) H.4, H.5 (pp. 490, 491)VIII Colorado Grant Yes I.1 (p. 492)MontanaGrant Yes I.2 (p. 493)North Dakota Partially grant,partially deny Yes I.3 (p. 493)South DakotaGrant Yes I.4 (p. 495)WyomingDeny No I.5 (p. 496)IX Arizona Partially grant,partially denyYes (for State and MaricopaCounty, not for Pima County)J.1, J.2, J.3(pp. 497, 498, 500)CaliforniaNot applicableYes (for Eastern Kern APCD,Imperial APCD and San JoaquinValley Unified APCD)J.4, J.5, J.6(pp. 500, 501, 502)X AlaskaGrant Yes K.1 (p. 503)IdahoDeny No K.2 (p. 504)OregonDeny No K.3 (p. 505)WashingtonGrantYes (for State, Energy Facility SiteEvaluation Council and SouthwestClean Air Agency)K.4, K.5, K.6(pp. 505, 506, 507)Sum:41 statesGrant or partiallygrant:34 statesSIP call:36 states