alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### P.B., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-1425.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Louis K. Nicholas, II, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Margarita Muina Febres, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

JORGENSON, Judge.

P.B. appeals from an order adjudicating him delinquent and committing him to the custody of HRS. We reverse.

P.B. and R.S. were charged with petit theft of a knife, cap, and wrench. Both denied the charges. Before the adjudicatory hearing, the state announced that it had reached a plea agreement with R.S. under which the mother of R.S. agreed to pay the victim $125 in restitution in exchange for a *nolle pros*of the charges against her son. Restitution was made, and the state entered a *nolle pros.*

The state offered the same plea to P.B. However, neither P.B. nor his family could afford to pay the victim $125. The family could not afford to pay one-half that amount, which the victim agreed would be adequate. Neither the state nor the victim would agree to allow P.B. to perform com-*884mumty service in lieu of restitution and insisted that P.B. be tried. Following an adjudicatory hearing, the court found P.B. guilty of petit theft, adjudicated him delinquent, and committed him to the custody of H.R.S.

From the record it is unmistakably clear that P.B. would not even have been tried if he had been able to pay $62.50 in restitution. His adjudication of delinquency and commitment to HRS inevitably followed from his indigency. A juvenile cannot be committed simply because he is indigent. *V.H. v. State,*498 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In *V.H.,*an indigent juvenile was unable to pay $48 in restitution and was committed. The trial judge had indicated a willingness to place Y.H. on community control if she paid restitution. The appellate court reversed the order of commitment, relying upon *Tate v. Short,*401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971). In *Tate,*the Court condemned, as a violation of equal protection, the practice of imprisoning an indigent defendant merely because he was financially unable to pay a fine. *Id.*at 399, 91 S.Ct. at 671, 28 L.Ed.2d at 133.

Here, P.B. was tried, adjudicated delinquent, and committed to the custody of H.R.S. in derogation of Tate’s mandate. The trial court’s error is particularly egregious in light of the state’s agreement to *nolle pros*P.B.’s corespondent’s charges in exchange for $125 restitution to the victim. Although the state enjoys wide discretion in fashioning plea agreements, that discretion cannot be exercised to deny an indigent juvenile equal protection under the Florida and United States constitutions. The United States Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that “[tjhere can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.” *Bearden v. Georgia,*461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983) (quoting *Griffin v. Illinois,*351 U.S. 12,19, 76 S.Ct. 585, 591,100 L.Ed. 891, 899 (1956)).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
#### In the Matter of Nostrand Gates Pharmacy, Inc., Respondent, v Cesar A. Perales et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Assistance, dated July 29, 1988, denying the petitioner’s application to re-enroll as a provider of services in the New York State Medicaid program, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 5, 1989, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and directed that the petitioner be re-enrolled in the Medicaid program.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The Supreme Court erred in finding that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing. Medicaid providers who are denied re-enrollment pursuant to 18 NYCRR part 504 are not entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 18 NYCRR part 515 *(see, Matter of Garcia v Perales,*168 AD2d 557; *Matter of Winyard v Perales,*161 AD2d 317; *Matter of G & S Pharmacy v Perales,*151 AD2d 668; *Matter of Bezar v New York State Dept. of Social Servs.,*151 AD2d 44).

Moreover, we find that the determination denying the petitioner’s application for re-enrollment was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur. *[See,*143 Misc 2d 464.]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 24
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         Each director and/or officer of CheckFree Holdings Corporation (the
"Corporation") whose signature appears below hereby appoints Peter J. Kight,
Mark A. Johnson, and Curtis A. Loveland as the undersigned's attorneys or any of
them individually as the undersigned's attorney, to sign, in the undersigned's
name and behalf and in any and all capacities stated below, and to cause to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission"), the
Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Form 10-K") for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 1999, and likewise to sign and file with the Commission any and
all amendments to the Form 10-K, and the Corporation hereby also appoints such
persons as its attorneys-in-fact and each of them as its attorney-in-fact with
like authority to sign and file the Form 10-K and any amendments thereto
granting to each such attorney-in-fact full power of substitution and
revocation, and hereby ratifying all that any such attorney-in-fact or the
undersigned's substitute may do by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this 20th day of
September, 1999.



Signature                                    Title


   /s/Peter J. Kight                         Chairman of the Board of Directors
   -------------------------                 and Chief Executive Officer
   Peter J. Kight


    /s/Mark A. Johnson                       Vice Chairman
   -------------------------
     Mark A. Johnson


    /s/Allen L. Shulman                      Executive Vice President, Chief
   -------------------------                 Financial Officer and General
     Allen L. Shulman                        Counsel



    /s/Gary A. Luoma, Jr.                    Vice President, Chief Accounting
   -------------------------                 Officer and Assistant Secretary
     Gary A. Luoma, Jr.


    /s/William P. Boardman                   Director
   -------------------------
     William P. Boardman


    /s/George R. Manser                      Director
   -------------------------
     George R. Manser


    /s/Eugene F. Quinn                       Director
   -------------------------
     Eugene F. Quinn


    /s/Jeffrey M. Wilkins                    Director
   -------------------------
     Jeffrey M. Wilkins
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2363 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2363

      To extend and modify temporarily the suspension of duty on 
                             Methylionone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Voinovich (for himself and Mr. Brown) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend and modify temporarily the suspension of duty on 
                             Methylionone.

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

SECTION 1. METHYLIONONE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.11.10 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 3-Methyl-4-(2,6,6-
trimethylcyclohex-2-enyl)but-3-en-2-one (Methylionone)) is amended--
            (1) by striking the rate in the Rates of Duty, General 
        column, and inserting ``0.6%''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2137 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2137

             To suspend temporarily the duty on Pentalyn C.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Alexander (for himself and Mr. Corker) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To suspend temporarily the duty on Pentalyn C.

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

SECTION 1. PENTALYN C.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Gums esterfied      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        with                                                               31/2011.......
                        pentaerythritol
                        (CAS No. 65997-12-
                        8) (provided for
                        in subheading
                        3806.30.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### City of Burlington v Khamnei

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

Count 1, Municipal Enforcement (74-7-18 Vtec)

Title: Motion to Dismiss (Motion 3)

Filer: Chris Khamnei Attorney: Pro Se Filed Date: October 1, 2018

Response filed on 10/15/2018 by Attorney Kimberlee J. Sturtevant for Plaintiff City of Burlington Opposition Response filed on 10/18/2018 by Chris Khamnei, Defendant Reply

The motion is DENIED.

Defendant Chris Khamnei (Defendant) asks the Court to dismiss the City of Burlington’s (City) Complaint for failure to state a valid claim. 1 A motion for failure to state a claim may not be granted unless it is beyond doubt that there are no facts or circumstances that would entitle the City to relief. Colby v. Umbrella, Inc., 2008 VT 20, ¶ 5, 184 Vt. 1 (citation omitted). We take all well-pleaded factual allegations in the Complaint as true and “assume that the movant’s contravening assertions are false.” Alger v. Dep’t of Labor & Industry, 2006 VT 115, ¶ 12, 181 Vt. 309 (citation omitted).

In this matter, the City alleges ongoing violations relating to exterior storage and rental of space in the backyard without zoning approval and occupancy without a certificate of occupancy. Though Defendant asserts that the violations have ceased, we take as true the City’s allegation that the violations are ongoing. Even if the violations are not ongoing, the City can bring an action to address prior violations that have ceased. See In re Cote NOV, Nos. 273-11-06 Vtec, 165-8-07 Vtec, slip op. at 3 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Dec. 5, 2007) (Durkin, J.) (noting that “remedial acts do not make . . . past zoning transgressions evaporate” so “violators who have cured may nonetheless be found to owe civil fines for their past violations” under 24 V.S.A. § 4451). And

1 Defendant also asserts that he is entitled to a jury trial in this matter. He bases this argument on a misreading of 24 V.S.A. § 1974a(b). This Court tries civil ordinance violations without a jury. See In re Letourneau, 168 Vt. 539, 552 (1998); see also Reporter’s Notes, V.R.E.C.P. 3 (noting that proceedings under the Rule are subject to applicable provisions of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure but that V.R.C.P. Rules 48-51, which relate to jury trials, “would be plainly inapplicable in proceedings as to which there was no right to a jury.”). Defendant’s request for a jury trial is DENIED

. 

## S TATE OF 

## V ERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. 74-7-18 Vtecwhile Defendant challenges whether some of the violations ever existed, this is not yet

established by the record.

We conclude that there are facts or circumstances relating to the City’s Complaint that would entitle the City to relief. Defendant’s motion is therefore DENIED

.

So ordered.

Electronically signed on October 30, 2018 at 09:57 AM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d).

_________________________________________ Thomas G. Walsh, Judge Superior Court, Environmental Division

Notifications: Kimberlee J. Sturtevant (ERN 4778), Attorney for Plaintiff City of Burlington

Defendant Chris Khamnei

jteske
**Exhibit 32****Residential Capital, LLC****Certification of Principal Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial Officer****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**In connection with the Quarterly Report of Residential Capital,LLC (the Company) onForm 10-Q for theperiod ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each ofthe undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-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/ Bruce J. Paradis Bruce J. ParadisChief Executive OfficerMay 8, 2007/s/ Sanjiv Khattri Sanjiv KhattriChief Financial OfficerMay 8, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2243 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2243

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rechargeable ultracapacitor 
                         long life flashlights.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rechargeable ultracapacitor 
                         long life flashlights.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN RECHARGEABLE FLASHLIGHTS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Flashlights         Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          incorporating                                                      31/2011.......
                          rechargeable
                          ultracapacitors
                          power sources
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          8513.10.20)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7767

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. HENRY P. BENNETT, JR., a/k/a Juni, a/k/a Unc , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 2:07

- cr - 00924

- DCN

- 1 )

Submitted : October 8, 2021 Decided: January 11, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jeremy A. Thompson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. M. Rhett DeHart, Acting Unit ed States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Andrew R. d e Holl, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM : Henry P. Bennett, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194,
5239

. We review a district court ’ s order denying a compassionate release motion for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have
reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion. The district cou rt denied Bennett’s
motion after assessing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sufficiently explained
its reasons for the denial. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for den ial of compassionate release motion).
We therefore affirm the district court ’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**WrittenStatement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

 

**Pursuantto Section 906**

 

**ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

The undersigned, theChief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Emergency MedicalServices Corporation, as general partner of Emergency Medical Services L.P., aDelaware limited partnership (the “Company”), each hereby certifies that, tohis knowledge on the date hereof:

 

(a)           the Form 10-Q of theCompany for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007, filed on the datehereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(b)          the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ William A. Sanger                                                                           |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | William A. Sanger                                                                               |
|   | Chief Executive Officer                                                                         |
|   | Emergency Medical Services Corporation, as  general partner of Emergency Medical  Services L.P. |
|   | November 7, 2007                                                                                |
|   |                                                                                            |
|   | /s/ Randel G. Owen                                                                              |
|   | Randel G. Owen                                                                                  |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                                                                         |
|   | Emergency Medical Services Corporation, as  general partner of Emergency Medical  Services L.P. |
|   | November 7, 2007                                                                                |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2



Certification



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned
officer of PECO II, Inc., an Ohio corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 (the Form 10-K)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.



|                      |  |  |  |                                             
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated: March 29, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Sandra A. Frankhouse                    
|                      |  |  |  |                                             
|                      |  |  |  | Sandra A. Frankhouse Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing
Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
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 Bedminster National Corp. (the
“Company”) on 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Paul Patrizio, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 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; and2.
              The
      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
      Bedminster National Corp.
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  BEDMINSTER
NATIONAL CORP.
  By:
              /s/
      Paul PatrizioPAUL
      PATRIZIOPresident,
      Chief Executive Officer,
                Chief
      Financial Officer,
  Date:  
November 19, 2008