alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3964

_____________________________

THOMAS M. PALMER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge.

August 21, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and MAKAR and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Thomas M. Palmer, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 12.3



CERTIFICATION



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Barry R. Elson, as Acting Chief Executive Officer of Telewest Communications plc (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(1) | the accompanying Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|       |  |                |  |  |  |        |  |                               
|------ |  | -------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ------------------------------
|       |  |                |  | 
|Dated: |  | March 24, 2004 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Barry R. Elson            
|       |  |                |  |  |  |        |  |                               
|       |  |                |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Barry R. Elson                
|       |  |                |  |  |  | Title: |  | Acting Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7122
GARY S. GUTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEBORAH CRAWFORD; JOHN KAY BANCROFT, Esquire, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-388-2) Submitted: November 19, 2002 Decided: December 11, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary S. Gutman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gary S. Gutman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000) and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. SeeGutman v. Crawford , No. CA-02-388-2 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2 002). 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.

DISMISSED
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 260 ) ll-K - (I ) -7 3 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:57AM Sheet 260of 325P. 2 

# ^8 II-K-(I)-7 3
COMPARISO N

O F INDUSTRIAL COAL RAI L RAT E PROJECTIONS . EEA , Inc . Apri l 3 , 1981 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUN D I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)-7 3
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Kidwell & Company, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-22-00439-CV

Trial court case number: 2021-04668

Trial court: 215th District Court of Harris County

Relator’s emergency motion to stay the underlying trial court proceedings is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Sarah B. Landau_______

Acting individually

Date: ___June 15, 2022____
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2429 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2429

   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain children's sandals and 
                           similar footwear.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain children's sandals and 
                           similar footwear.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN CHILDREN'S SANDALS AND SIMILAR FOOTWEAR.

    (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      Sandals and         Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        similar footwear                                                   31/2011.......
                        of plastics,
                        produced in one
                        piece by molding,
                        the foregoing for
                        persons other
                        than men or women
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        6402.99.27)......

    (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>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         5,317,000
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,261,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (401,000)
<INVENTORY>                                      980,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              10,529,000
<PP&E>                                         3,045,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                (2,078,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                11,545,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,979,000
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                      21,428,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (12,862,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  11,545,000
<SALES>                                       17,627,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              17,627,000
<CGS>                                         11,034,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              11,250,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (4,657,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               176,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (4,481,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       9,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (4,490,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.00
        


</TABLE>
#### Kenny DIOR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-2309.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 7, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Henry H. Hamage, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Ralph Barreira, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Where the defendant’s alleged profane statements were uttered out of the court’s hearing, the resulting conviction for direct criminal contempt was reversible error. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.830; *Pugliese v. Pugliese,*347 So.2d 422 (Fla.1977). The State confesses the error.

Reversed and remanded.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000614

29-MAR-2018

11:26 AM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1820

ERIC J. BONETTI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA; ROBERT HILLER MALM; EPISCOPAL 

DIOCESE OF VIRGINIA; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; EPISCOPAL 

DIOCESE OF MASSACHUSETTS; ST. GABRIEL’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00190-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: October 6, 2021 Decided: October 20, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric J. Bonetti, Appellant Pro Se. George Arthur McAndrews, OFFICE OF THE CITY 

ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Wayne F. Cyron, CYRON & MILLER, LLP, 

Alexandria, Virginia; Diane Elizabeth DiBlasio, Matthew James Youssef, NILES, 

BARTON & WILMER, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric J. Bonetti sued the City of Alexandria, Virginia; Robert Malm; the Episcopal 

Diocese of Virginia; the Commonwealth of Virginia; the Episcopal Diocese of 

Massachusetts; and St. Gabriel’s Episcopal Church (collectively Defendants), alleging in 

an amended complaint that Defendants violated his civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 1983, 1985(3), and engaged in acts of civil conspiracy in violation of Virginia law. The 

district court dismissed Bonetti’s claims and denied Bonetti’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion 

for reconsideration. On appeal, Bonetti asserts that the city engaged in a pattern and 

practice of violating his civil rights and that Defendants conspired to deprive him of his 

civil rights. 

We review de novo a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “accept[ing] the factual allegations in the complaint as true and 

constru[ing] them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Rockville Cars, 

LLC v. City of Rockville, 891 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2018). To survive a motion to dismiss, 

“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). In other words, “a plaintiff must provide sufficient detail to 

show that he has a more-than-conceivable chance of success on the merits.” Upstate

Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637, 645 (4th Cir. 2018) 

(cleaned up), vacated on other grounds, 140 S. Ct. 2736 (2020).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not 

err in dismissing Bonetti’s claims and denying reconsideration. Accordingly, we deny 
3

Bonetti’s motion for injunctive relief and stay pending appeal and affirm the district court’s 

orders. 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
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Anthony RAY, Appellee.

No. 87-2922.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 3, 1988.

*1034Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joseph R. Bryant, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

Raul C. Palomino, Jr. of Raul C. Palomino, Jr., P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals the trial court’s dismissal of the charge against defendant. The dismissal was a sanction for discovery violations by the state. We reverse.

Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. Defense counsel filed a demand for discovery. The state responded with a copy of the police report which included the names of the four arresting officers.

Three days before trial, at a status conference, defense counsel noted that the state had not furnished the names of any additional witnesses which the prosecution might intend to call at trial. The state gave the names of two more witnesses.

On the day of trial, defense counsel noted that no witness list had been received from the state. The state said that a response to the discovery demand had been prepared but was not yet typed and delivered to the defense. The state also said that the defense had not been given the names of the confidential informants and that the state would try to get those names to the defense that afternoon.

The trial court *sua sponte*indicated its inclination to dismiss the charge against defendant. The state then argued that dismissal was the most severe sanction and that a continuance would cure the problem. Defense counsel argued that his client’s right to a fair trial had been prejudiced by the state’s failure to respond to the discovery demand. The trial court then dismissed the charge.

We must conclude that the dismissal was an abuse of discretion. That extreme sanction should be imposed only when less severe sanctions would not accomplish the desired result. *See State v. King,*372 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

The record shows no discussion in the trial court about the amount of time remaining before defendant’s speedy trial time expired. However, our calculations indicate that substantial speedy trial time remained and that the trial could have been continued within that time for a period sufficient to allow the defendant to obtain discovery and prepare for trial. *See State v. Perez,*383 So.2d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 2061

ALAJUAN ROBINSON; REGGIE ROBINSON EL , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. SERGEANT PINTEZ, Monongalia County Sheriff ’ s Dept., in his individual and official capacities; J.D. MORGAN, Monongalia County Sheriff ’ s Dept., in his individual and official capacities; JOHN DOE, tow truck driver WaterFront Towing LLC, in his individual and official capacities , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg

. Thomas S. Kleeh , District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv
- 00151

- TSK

- MJA )

Submitted : February 28, 2020 Decided: March 6, 2020

Before MOTZ , KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Alajuan Robinson , Reggie Robinson El , Appellants Pro Se. Keith C. Gamble , PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC , Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this ci rcuit.2 PER CURIAM: Alajuan Robinson and Reggie Robinson El app eal the district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation s of the magistrate judge , denying Robinson and
Robinson El’s motion to remand the action to state court, and granting Defend ants’ motion
to dismiss Robinson and Robinson El’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (201 8 ) complaint. W e have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Robinson and Robinson El’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons s tated by the
district court. Robinson v. Pintez , No. 1:18

- cv
- 00151

- TSK

- MJA (N.D.W. Va

. Sept. 10 , 2019)

. 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
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

# TIME AND DATE: 

10 a.m. (Eastern Time), March 26, 2012. 

# PLACE: 

10th Floor Conference Room, 77 K Street NE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20002. 

# STATUS:

 Parts will be open to the public and parts will be closed to the public. 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

## Parts Open to the Public 

1. Approval of the Minutes of the February 27, 2012 Board Member Meeting. 

2. Thrift Savings Plan Activity Report by the Executive Director: 

a. Monthly Participant Activity Report. 

b. Investment Performance Report. 

c. Legislative Report. 

## Parts Closed to the Public 

3. Predecisional Matters. 

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Kimberly A. Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640. 

Dated: March 16, 2012. 

Megan G. Grumbine, 

Acting Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

[FR Doc. 2012-6808 Filed 3-16-12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOHN D. MARSHALL
, Appellant,

v.

ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, JEFF CATO, JARED SMOKE, KEVIN SNYDER, ERIC FARRONE, JOSEPH BARONE, PETER LANE, GEICO, GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LESLIE STEIN and MARCUS STEIN
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 19

- 2244

[ February 6, 2020 ]

Appeal of a nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seven teenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; David Haimes , Judge; L.T. Case No.

CACE 17

- 16645 (21)

.

John D. Marshall, Lighthouse Point, pro se.

Jacqueline G. Emanuel and Thomas G. Guzda of Knoerr & Emanuel,
P.A., for appellee s Allstate Fire and Casualty Insu rance Company and Kevin Snyder

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE
, C. J., G ERBER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Shelia NORRIS, et al. v. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, et al.

No. 86-C-2363.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Norris, Shelia; Norris, Theodore Sr.; Norris, Theodore Sr., Mrs.; applying for writs of mandamus, prohibition, certio-rari, and review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 85-1087; Parish of Avo-yelles, 12th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 81-1126.

Prior report: La.App., 495 So.2d 976.

Denied.
BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE
1717 EAST INTERSTATE AVENUE BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA56503·0564 PHONE. 701-223-0441 FAX: 701-557-5336

March 16,2009

Mr. David Finley, Administrator Air Quality Division WY Department of Environmental Quality 122 West 25th Street Herschler Building Cheyenne, WY 82002
Dear Mr. Finley:
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) notified Basin Electric in June 2006 thatthe Laramie River Station (LRS) was a BestAvailable RetrofitTechnology (BART) applicable source which required a BART engineering and modeling analysis for reducing visibility impacts in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's Guidelines for BART Determinations underthe Regional Haze Rules (40 CFR Part 51). Visibility impacts for LRS were evaluated at two Federal Class I areas - Badlands National Park and Wind Cave National Park.
A BART review was required to identifythe best retrofit technologyforthe reduction of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfurdioxide (S02), and particulate matter (PM) emissions from LRS Units 1, 2 and 3. Basin Electric contracted Black & Veatch to conduct a BART analysis to identify technically feasible and cost-effective technologies following the BART Guidelines. A modeling analysis was completed to evaluate the impact on visibility in the two identified Class I areas. Reports and subsequent revisions ofthe BART analyses were submitted to youroffice on February 28,2007; September25,2007; February 14, 2008; and July24,2008.
As a result ofour meeting with yourstaffon March 2,2009, Basin Electric proposes a BART limitation for NOxemissions on a 30-day rolling average of 1,348 Ib/hourfor Unit 1; 1,348 Ib/hourfor Unit 2; and 1,386 Ib/hourfor Unit 3, which is calculated from emissions of 0.21 Ib/million Btu. In addition, we agree to an annual mass emissions limitation of5,343 

### tons/year for Unit 1; 5,343 

### tons/yearfor Unit 2; and 5,493 

### tons/yearfor Unit 3, which is calculated from emissions of0.19 Ib/million Btu,
We are proceeding with our plans to install over-fire air (OFA) on Unit 1 this spring, Unit2 in the spring of2010, and on Unit3 in the spring of2011. In addition, we plan to upgrade to 10w-NOx Burners (LNB) on Units 1, 2, and 3 in 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively. While we anticipate emissions of0.18 Ib/mmBtu under ideal operating conditions, normal emissions are likelyto be higher.
After Basin Electric and DEQ agree on a plan, we will present itto the Missouri Basin Power Project (MBPP) management and ask approval from the projectowners.

A TouchstoneEnergy·Cooperative

## ~T.)I: 

# - Equal Employment Opportunity Employer

### March 16, 2009 Page 2

Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at 701-557-5654 or Lyle Witham at701-557-5652. Sincerely,

Robert

### L. Eriksen, P.E. Sr. Environmental Compliance Administrator 

### Igmj cc: Chad Schlichtemeier, DEQ Mike Fluharty David Cummings LyleWitham