alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. GAYETY THEATRES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 87-720.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 23, 1988.

Rehearing Denied April 1, 1988.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Kaplan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

David M. Shenkman, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order dismissing an information which charged the defendant with a felony obscenity offense, pursuant to section 847.011(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1986). The trial court dismissed the information for want of subject matter jurisdiction, and we affirm.

Upon the state’s filing of felony charges for violation of section 847.011 (obscenity statute), Gayety Theatres filed a motion to dismiss. The court granted the dismissal holding that prior convictions of the defendant were outside the five-year limita*232tion period of section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1985) (enhancement statute) and that the obscenity statute specifically required reference to the enhancement statute in order to bring felony charges. The state could not bring misdemeanor charges because such jurisdiction had already expired. Thus, the case was dismissed. Claiming reversible error, the state appeals.

The state rightly asserts that the obscenity statute, on its face, creates a felony based on a prior pornography conviction independent of the enhancement provisions of section 775.084. The enhancement statute, and its requirement that there be two prior convictions within five years, only applies when the state seeks to punish the defendant to an obscenity charge as an habitual criminal; its use is optional. To support this contention, the state correctly relies upon the case of *State v. Harris,*856 So.2d 315 (Fla.1978) where the supreme court held that the petit larceny statute creates a substantive offense distinguishable from the enhancement statute.

The rub in the present case is that while the criminal information at issue is titled a felony, no prior conviction is alleged, nor does the information track section 847.011(l)(a). Hence, the information does not allege sufficient facts to enable the state to charge the defendant with a felony. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(d)(1). The title to an information does not constitute a part thereof. *State v. Cunningham,*380 S.W.2d 401, 403 (Mo.1964); *Roberson v. State,*362 P.2d 1115, 1117 (Okla.Crim.App.1961); Cap*les v. State,*3 Okla.Crim. 72, 104 P. 493 (1909). A criminal information must allege sufficient facts to create and activate a circuit court’s exclusive felony jurisdiction. *Young v. State,*439 So.2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); *Christopher v. State,*397 So.2d 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); § 26.012(2)(d), Fla.Stat. (1985).

Our affirmance, therefore, acknowledges the state’s ability to allege a felony based solely on section 847.011 within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. The information before us, however, simply failed to do so.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS, INC.

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 annual report of AirTran Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Stanley J. Gadek, Senior Vice President, Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|               |  |     |  |                                                            
|-------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|August 9, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Stanley J. Gadek                                       
|               |  |     |  | Stanley J. Gadek                                           
|               |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Finance, and Chief Financial
Officer
Exhibit 35.2SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENTAmex Card Services CompanyAmerican Express Credit Account Master TrustReporting Period January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006     The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Amex Card Services Company (“ACSC”), awholly-owned subsidiary of American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (“TRS”), pursuantto the Subservicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2006, (the “Agreement”) between TRS and ACSC, doeshereby certify that:1. ACSC performs certain servicing procedures on behalf of TRS under the Agreement. 2. The Undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Certificate. 3. A review of ACSC’s activities during the reporting period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under my supervision. 4. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, ACSC has fulfilled all of its obligationsunder the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 22nd day of March,2007.AMEX CARD SERVICES COMPANY     By: /s/ James Bush  Name: James Bush  Title: Chairman and President       By: /s/ Marc Rosenwald  Name: Marc Rosenwald  Title: Authorized Signatory
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2173 

To suspend temporarily the duty on ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene 

yarn measuring not less than 341 decitex but not more than 510 decitex. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on ultra-high molecular 

weight polyethylene yarn measuring not less than 341 

decitex but not more than 510 decitex. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ULTRA-HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT POLY4 ETHYLENE YARN MEASURING NOT LESS 

5 THAN 341 DECITEX BUT NOT MORE THAN 510 

6 DECITEX. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

9 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

10 new heading: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2173 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Ultra-high molecular weight 

polyethylene yarn, measuring 

not less than 341 decitex but 

not more than 510 decitex 

(provided for in subheading 

5402.59.00) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO H. ESTRADA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-15892

D.C. No. 4:09-cv-02330-PJH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Mario H. Estrada appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations

in connection with a prison gang validation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

FILED

JUL 10 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-15892

§ 1291. We review de novo both a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(order), and the district court’s summary judgment, Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d

896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Estrada’s procedural due process claim

concerning defendant Marquez’s participation in the gang validation proceeding

because Estrada had an opportunity to present his views to the Institutional Gang

Investigator. See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 926 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir. 1990) (due

process requires opportunity for prisoner to present views to the critical decisionmaker).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Estrada’s due

process claim concerning the sufficiency of the evidence used to validate him as a

gang member because there was “some evidence” to support the validation. See

Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287-88 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming summary

judgment on due process claim where “some evidence” supported the gang

validation, and explaining that the standard is met where there is any evidence in

the record that could support the conclusion).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Estrada’s

retaliation claim because Estrada failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
3 11-15892

as to retaliatory motive. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.

2005) (setting forth the elements of a retaliation claim).

Estrada’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

Estrada’s motion to take judicial notice, filed on December 27, 2011, is

denied as unnecessary. 

AFFIRMED.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2115 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Polycaprolactone Diol #1. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BUNNING introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Polycaprolactone Diol 

#1. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. POLYCAPROLACTONE DIOL #1. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Caprolactone-diethylene glycol copolymer (CAS No. 

75035–33–5) (provided for in 

subheading 3907.99.01) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2115 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 16, 2002 Se ssion GINNIE LEACH, ET AL 

### . v. TIM TAYLOR, ET AL 

### . A Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Gibson County No. 7852 The Honorable Clayburn Peeples, Judge

No. W2002-01091-COA-R3-CV - Filed Dec ember 30, 2002

Ho ll y Ki rb y Lil la rd , J ., di ss en ti ng se pa ra te ly.
The majority

in this case concludes that there are no allegations in the complaint from which it can be inferred that the Defe ndants knew the statements regarding the c ondition of the Decedent’s body were fa lse. I respec tfully

dissent. At the time the statements in question were made, the Defendants had e mbalmed the body in preparation for

burial, a nd thus had

persona l knowledge of it s conditio n. Even if it is assumed that s ome of the statements made were the result of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of t h e process of harvesting orga ns for transpla nt, the al legati ons includ

ed some st

atementsabout which there could be no misunder standing . For exa mple, the Defend ants alle gedly

told Plaintiffs that the medical personnel who harvested the organs “even took his private parts.” I f this statement was false, the Defendants, having embalmed the body , had to kn ow it . Regar dless of th

e ultimate explanation for the statemen ts, I believe that the Plaintiffs are e ntitled to proceed, and that dismissal basedon the pleadings alone is erroneous. There fore, I would reverse th

e decisi on of the t

rial cou rt.

HOL LY KI RBY LI LL ARD , J.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 30, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-1569 Lower Tribunal No. 21-771

________________ 

### L.S., A Juvenile , Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Dawn Denaro, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Maria E. Lauredo, Chief Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
#### Rolf R. SCHROEDER v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, Continental Insurance Company.

No. 86-CC-2405.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Louisiana St. Univ. Bd. Sup.; Continental Insurance Co.; applying for writ of *81certiorari and/or review; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”, No. 303131; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW 86 1345.

Not considered. Not timely filed.
# L_2006261EN.01002401.xml

| 22.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 261/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 261/24

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1399/2006

of 21 September 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 15 to 21 September 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 22 September 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 September 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 172, 24.6.2006, p. 6.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2207 

To suspend temporarily the duty on chlorobenzene. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on chlorobenzene. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CHLOROBENZENE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Chlorobenzene (CAS No. 

108–90–7) (provided for in 

subheading 2903.61.10) ........ 2.90% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2207 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, a corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. G. G. Register, Defendant in Error.

(Supreme Court of Florida, Division B,

November 23, 1905.)

Writ of Error to Circuit Court, Suwannee County; B. H. Palmer, Judge.

*John E. Hartridge*and *J. B. Johnson,*for Plaintiff in Error.

No appearance for the Defendant in Error.

Decision

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. There was judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant takes writ of error. Judgment affirmed.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2172 

To suspend temporarily the duty on ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene 

yarn measuring not less than 40 decitex but not more than 130 decitex. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on ultra-high molecular 

weight polyethylene yarn measuring not less than 40 

decitex but not more than 130 decitex. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ULTRA-HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT POLY4 ETHYLENE YARN MEASURING NOT LESS 

5 THAN 40 DECITEX BUT NOT MORE THAN 130 

6 DECITEX. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

9 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

10 new heading: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2172 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Ultra-high molecular weight 

polyethylene yarn, measuring 

not less than 40 decitex but 

not more than 130 decitex 

(provided for in subheading 

5402.59.00) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6712

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHELDON MOORE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,

Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-00048-RBS-TEM-3)

Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 2, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sheldon Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sheldon Moore appeals the district court’s orders

denying his “Motion to Compel Government to Honor Agreement and 

for Evidentiary Hearing on this Matter” and his motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Moore, No. 4:07-cr00048-RBS-TEM-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 16, 2012 & Apr. 6, 2012). 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 5, 2012 

y0227 

Order 

 

March 5, 2012 

143958 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143958 

 COA: 304933 

Jackson CC: 09-006221-FH 

KEITH DENNIS BROWN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 20, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2022 

To extend the temporary duty reduction on certain pepperoncini prepared 

or preserved by vinegar. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary duty reduction on certain 

pepperoncini prepared or preserved by vinegar. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PEPPERONCINI PREPARED OR PRE4 SERVED BY VINEGAR. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.29 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 pepperoncini prepared or preserved by vinegar) is amend8 ed by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2022 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS