alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Goldia KIMBLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. FF-491.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 16, 1978.

On Rehearing July 26, 1978.

Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

SMITH, Judge.

Kimbler appeals from her convictions of murder in the second degree and tampering with evidence. Joe Max Valdez died of an abdominal gunshot wound at appellant’s home on the night of August 23, 1976, or early the next morning. The weapon was not found. He was last seen alive by testifying witnesses at 10 p. m. The medical evidence suggests he died no later than 2 a. m. Police arrived at 8:30 a. m. The convictions rest on incriminating inferences from circumstantial evidence. That evidence was insufficient to permit findings, beyond a reasonable doubt, of Kimbler’s guilt. The evidence does not fairly exclude several hypotheses of her innocence which are suggested by the evidence or lack of it, and which the jury and trial judge were bound to regard. *Davis v. State,*90 So.2d 629 (Fla.1956); *Head v. State,*62 So.2d 41 (Fla.1952); *Amato v. State,*296 So.2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The incriminating extrajudicial testimony given by the witness Burr, with which the state attempted to impeach Burr when she failed to so testify as the court’s witness, cannot be considered as competent evidence on the charge against appellant. *Pitts v. State,*333 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Appellant’s motion for new trial should have been granted. *McArthur v. State,*351 So.2d 972 (Fla.1977). The convictions are REVERSED AND REMANDED.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

SMITH, Judge.

Kimbler’s petition for rehearing calls attention to the United States Supreme Court decisions announced June 14 in *Burks v. United*States, - U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), and *Greene v. Massey,*- U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978); and to that Court’s summary action on June 26, 1978, - U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 3119, 57 L.Ed.2d 1145, vacating *McArthur v. State,*351 So.2d 972 (Fla.1977), relied on in our opinion in this case, and remanding the case for reconsideration in the light of *Burks*and *Greene.*

*1271In ordering Kimbler remanded for a new trial, because she had asked for that relief, below and not for judgment of acquittal, we gave effect to a view of the Double Jeopardy Clause which *Burks*and *Greene*have overruled. *Burks*holds that when as here an appellate court has determined that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, the accused must be discharged, not retried; and that "it makes no difference that a defendant has sought a new trial as one of his remedies, or even as the sole remedy.” Burks, - U.S. at -, 98 S.Ct. at 2150.

The petition for rehearing is GRANTED and Kimbler is DISCHARGED.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., CONCUR.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1743 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1743

 To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to recognize the authority of States 
    to regulate oil and gas operations and promote American energy 
    security, development, and job creation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 20, 2013

    Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Risch) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to recognize the authority of States 
    to regulate oil and gas operations and promote American energy 
    security, development, and job creation, 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 ``Protecting States' Rights to Promote 
American Energy Security Act''.

SEC. 2. STATE AUTHORITY FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING REGULATION.

    The Mineral Leasing Act is amended--
            (1) by redesignating section 44 (30 U.S.C. 181 note) as 
        section 45; and
            (2) by inserting after section 43 (30 U.S.C. 226-3) the 
        following:

``SEC. 44. STATE AUTHORITY FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING REGULATION.

    ``(a) Definition of Hydraulic Fracturing.--In this section the term 
`hydraulic fracturing' means the process by which fracturing fluids (or 
a fracturing fluid system) are pumped into an underground geologic 
formation at a calculated, predetermined rate and pressure to generate 
fractures or cracks in the target formation and, as a result, increase 
the permeability of the rock near the wellbore and improve production 
of natural gas or oil.
    ``(b) Prohibition.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not enforce 
any Federal regulation, guidance, or permit requirement regarding 
hydraulic fracturing, or any component of hydraulic fracturing, 
relating to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities on or under 
any land in any State that has regulations, guidance, or permit 
requirements for hydraulic fracturing.
    ``(c) State Authority.--The Secretary shall recognize and defer to 
State regulations, guidance, and permitting for all activities 
regarding hydraulic fracturing, or any component of hydraulic 
fracturing, relating to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities 
on Federal land regardless of whether the regulations, guidance, and 
permitting are duplicative, more or less restrictive, have different 
requirements, or do not meet Federal regulations, guidance, or permit 
requirements.''.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00343

- CV

EXLP LEASING, LLC and EES Leasing, LLC,

Appellants

v.

WEBB COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT and United Independent School District,

Appellees

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CV

- 8000073

- D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this da te, the trial court’s order is REVERSED

and the matter is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

We order that appellants EXLP Leasing, LLC and EES Leasing, LLC recover their costs

of appeal from appellees Webb County Appraisal District a nd United Independent School District.

SIGNED June 3, 2015.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
# CA2011312EN.01000101.xml

| 25.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 312/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 312/1

---

RESERVE LISTS (1)

1

OPEN COMPETITION

EPSO/AST/102/10

ASSISTANTS (AST 3)

AUDIOVISUAL/WEB DESIGN

(2011/C 312 A/01)

Field 1 — Assistant audiovisual producer

| ASBERT SAGASTI | Elena |
| --- | --- |
| FONTAO REGUEIRA | Óscar |
| KURZE | Elena |
| NAJ-OLEARI | Pietro |
| PAILLET | Stéphanie |
| TORRES MARTINEZ | Alexia |

ASBERT SAGASTI

Elena

FONTAO REGUEIRA

Óscar

KURZE

Elena

NAJ-OLEARI

Pietro

PAILLET

Stéphanie

TORRES MARTINEZ

Alexia

Field 2 — Audiovisual technicians

| BARZAQ | Abderrahmane |
| --- | --- |
| BOGAERTS | Gert |
| CHIOREAN | Raol Raul |
| PERSOONS | Erik |

BARZAQ

Abderrahmane

BOGAERTS

Gert

CHIOREAN

Raol Raul

PERSOONS

Erik

Field 3 — Audiovisual archivists

| BARVAUX | Anne-Catherine |
| --- | --- |
| HIRSCH | Oliver |
| NAESSENS | Sylvain |
| WOUCTERS | Ellen |

BARVAUX

Anne-Catherine

HIRSCH

Oliver

NAESSENS

Sylvain

WOUCTERS

Ellen

Field 4 — Specialist web graphic artist ‘multimedia and mobile’

| ALVAREZ LLANO | Iratxe |
| --- | --- |
| BOULGUY | Martial |
| CAMBESES POLANCO | Vosnier |
| GRELET | Frédéric |
| LAUKES | Sophie |

ALVAREZ LLANO

Iratxe

BOULGUY

Martial

CAMBESES POLANCO

Vosnier

GRELET

Frédéric

LAUKES

Sophie

Field 5 — Multimedia and mobile web developer

| CRINTEA | Danut Valentin |
| --- | --- |
| DE BAENST | Bertrand |
| KESCHENAU | Martin |
| PANNEKOECKE | Aymeric |
| WEYKMANS | François Roger Henri Léon |

CRINTEA

Danut Valentin

DE BAENST

Bertrand

KESCHENAU

Martin

PANNEKOECKE

Aymeric

WEYKMANS

François Roger Henri Léon

Field 6 — Website and applications designer

| BONETTI | Fabio |
| --- | --- |
| CHATZOPOULOS | Dimitrios |
| INGABIRE | Laurent |
| MASSART | Robin |
| NUÑEZ | Ana |

BONETTI

Fabio

CHATZOPOULOS

Dimitrios

INGABIRE

Laurent

MASSART

Robin

NUÑEZ

Ana

The reserve lists will be valid until 10 September 2014.

10 September 2014

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.

1

---
#### Jeff A. HEDDEN, Trustee, Appellant, v. W. L. COBB CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 71-84.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 15, 1971.

David W. Rynders, of Wightman, Rowe, Weidemeyer, Federico, Clearwater, for appellant.

Charles E. H. Beck, of Di Vito & Beck, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

This case, like Port Carlos Trailer Park, Inc. v. Warren Brothers Co., Fla.App.1970, 240 So.2d 165, involves an effort to terminate an improvidently brought action to impress an equitable lien. Here the motion was for judgment on the pleadings, in *Port Carlos,*to dismiss. In both it is obvious that the same cause should continue, after appropriate amendment of pleadings, as an action for damages. For the reasons therein stated, without determining issues more appropriate to appeal after final judgment, the order from which this interlocutory appeal is taken is

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
**Exhibit 32**

 

CONTINENTAL MATERIALSCORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the annual report of Continental MaterialsCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 29,2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, James G. Gidwitz, the Chairman of the Board and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and I, Joseph J. Sum, the Vice President andChief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)          The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company for the periods presented in theReport.

 

March 28, 2008

 
|   | By:    | /s/  James G. Gidwitz                       |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   |   | James  G. Gidwitz                           |
|   |   | Chairman  of the Board and                  |
|   |   | Chief  Executive Officer                    |
|   |   |                                        |
|   |   |                                        |
|   | By:    | /s/  Joseph J. Sum                          |
|   |   | Joseph  J. Sum                              |
|   |   | Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

The foregoing certification accompanies the issurer’s Annual Report onFrom 10-K and is not filed as provided in SEC Release Nos. 33-8212, 34-4751 andIC-25967, dated November 16, 2007.

 

 

----
#### Gerald Jessie KILPATRICK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-332.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 28, 1973.

Gerald Jessie Kilpatrick in pro. per.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, *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 a memorandum brief in support of his position, and 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 of judgement appealed is hereby affirmed.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB10-CN.45 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
(301) 763-3691
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  SUNDAY, APRIL 11, 2010 Six Days Left to Mail Back 2010 Census Forms Residents encouraged to help their communities get fair share of federal funds Residents are encouraged to promptly mail back their forms, because census data are used to determine how more than $400 billion of federal funding is spent annually on community services, including hospitals, schools, senior centers, roads and job training centers. "Nationwide, about 65 percent of households have mailed back their census forms. In 2000, the mail participation rate was 72 percent," U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said. "Residents who fail to mail back their forms by April 16 may be visited by a census worker in May." ABOUT THE 2010 CENSUS The 2010 Census is a count of everyone living in the United States and is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Census data are used to apportion congressional seats to states, to distribute more than $400 billion in federal funds to tribal, state and local governments each year and to make decisions about what community services to provide. The 2010 Census form is one of the shortest in U.S. history, consisting of 10 questions, taking about 10 minutes to complete. Strict confidentiality laws protect the respondents and the information they provide.
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### Charles Edward SCANTLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-336.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 23, 1972.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Steven E. Rohan, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, *240and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### William B. MONDRY, Petitioner, v. Alice Anne MONDRY, Respondent.

No. 72-1162.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 16, 1973.

Petition for certiorari quashed.
# C_2011307EN.01000801.xml

| 19.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 307/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 307/8

---

Calls for proposals under the 2012 work programme ‘People’ of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities

2011/C 307/07

Notice is hereby given of the launch of calls for proposals under the 2012 work programme ‘People’ of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013).

Proposals are invited for the following calls. Call deadlines and budgets are given in the call texts, which are published on the relevant European Commission website.

‘People’ specific programme:

‘People’ specific programme:

| Call title | Call identifier |
| --- | --- |
| Co-funding of Regional, National and International Programmes | FP7-PEOPLE-2012-COFUND |
| Industry-academia partnerships and pathways | FP7-PEOPLE-2012-IAPP |

Call title

Call identifier

Co-funding of Regional, National and International Programmes

FP7-PEOPLE-2012-COFUND

Industry-academia partnerships and pathways

FP7-PEOPLE-2012-IAPP

These calls for proposals relate to the 2012 work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2011) 5033 of 19 July 2011.

Information on the modalities of the calls, the work programmes, and the guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals are available through the relevant European Commission website.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00121-CV

State of Texas and Texas Department of Transportation, Appellants

v.

Signad, Ltd., Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-07-001982, HONORABLE MARGARET A. COOPER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants State of Texas and Texas Department of Transportation and appellee

Signad, Ltd. filed a joint motion requesting that this appeal be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.1(a). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

__________________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed on Joint Motion

Filed: October 31, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 38450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16782]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority No. 448]


Delegation of Authority To Concur With Department of Defense 
Humanitarian and Civic Assistance Activities

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the 
laws of the United States, including section 1 of the State Department 
Basic Authorities Act, I hereby delegate to the Under Secretary for 
Arms Control and International Security, to the extent authorized by 
law, the authority to concur with the Secretary of Defense on 
humanitarian and civic assistance activities.
    Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, any function or 
authority delegated herein may be exercised by the Secretary and the 
Deputy Secretary. The authority delegated herein may be re-delegated, 
to the extent authorized by law. Any reference in this delegation of 
authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to 
be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended 
from time to time.
    This delegation of authority shall be published in the Federal 
Register.

    Dated: June 29, 2018.
Michael R. Pompeo,
Secretary of State, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2018-16782 Filed 8-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6518
In Re: MICHAEL MCEVILY, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-297-7) Submitted: June 23, 2003 Decided: July 11, 2003 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael McEvily, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael McEvily petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly de layed acting on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000948086
<NAME> PEPSI COLA PUERTO RICO BOTTLING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,954
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,396
<INVENTORY>                                      3,949
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,572
<PP&E>                                          73,772
<DEPRECIATION>                                (28,116)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,233
<BONDS>                                         23,242
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           215
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,232
<SALES>                                         22,943
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,943
<CGS>                                         (16,331)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (25,101)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   438
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   137
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (629)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,212)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,061)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,151)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,151)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### AMERICAR, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. James W. CROWLEY et al., Respondents.

No. 44610.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 7, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed. 282 So.2d 674.