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

No. 4-86-0166.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 28, 1987.

*176Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Eddie J. Bell, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

STONE, Judge.

Pleading guilty to second degree murder, defendant was sentenced, in aggravation of the guidelines, to life in prison.

The defendant was sitting in the front seat of an automobile next to his wife when he shot the victim, who was seated in the rear. The defendant then left the vehicle and shot the victim again. It is undisputed that the basis for aggravating the sentence was the risk of harm to the defendant’s wife or unknown others. There is no direct evidence that the passenger, or any one else, was ever at or near the line of fire, or otherwise endangered by the method of firing. We recognize that there may be other circumstances in which endangerment of a co-passenger might warrant aggravation of a sentence. Absent speculation, the proof here was insufficient to meet the standard. *See Scurry v. State,*489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986); *State v. Mischler,*488 So.2d 523, 525 (Fla.1986).

We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11
 

                          LONG TERM PURCHASE AGREEMENT
                          ----------------------------


Purchaser:  Zhaoqing Blue Ribbon Beer Marketing Co., Ltd.

Supplier:   Zhaoqing Blue Ribbon High Worth Brewery, Ltd.


     1.  Products
         --------

         The Purchaser will purchase on a long term basis all the Pabst Blue
         Ribbon beer products produced by the Supplier (including 640 ml
         bottled, 355 ml canned and 355 ml bottled beer).

         All the products must meet the hygienic standards and the corresponding
         packaging requirements. The Supplier hereby agreed to sell the Pabst
         Blue Ribbon beer product exclusively to the Purchaser only, and the
         Supplier agreed not to sell these beer products to any other customers
         except for the Purchaser.

     2.  Prices & Quantities
         -------------------

         The Purchaser will negotiate the purchase prices and the order
         quantities with the Supplier on a monthly basis. The Supplier must
         produce and deliver timely the products to the Purchaser in accordance
         with the Purchaser's ordering instructions. The Supplier has no rights
         to enquire about the customers information from the Purchaser. The
         Purchaser will guarantee the purchase prices and the order quantities
         for each month.

     3.  Payment Terms
         -------------

         The sale and purchase transactions are held on an open account basis.
         The Supplier will issue the good delivery notes and sales invoices to
         the Purchaser on a monthly basis. The Purchaser must pay to the
         Supplier within one month after receiving the products.

     4.  Others
         ------

         All the products sold to the Purchaser are not returnable to the
         Supplier except for those products appear to have quality defects.
         After the Purchaser receiving the products, all the risks are then
         borne by the Purchaser, and the Purchaser must pay to the Supplier
         promptly in accordance with the payment terms specified in this
         agreement.

The Purchaser and the Supplier each holds one executed copy of this agreement.



/s/ Zhaoqing Blue Ribbon Beer Marketing Co., Ltd. 
-------------------------------------------------

/s/ Zhaoqing Blue Ribbon High Worth Brewery, Ltd.
-------------------------------------------------


Date:  April 1, 1995
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2405 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on acrylic or modacrylic stable 

fibers, carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. HAGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on acrylic or 

modacrylic stable fibers, carded, combed, or otherwise 

processed for spinning. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ACRYLIC OR MODACRYLIC STABLE FIBERS, 

4 CARDED, COMBED, OR OTHERWISE PROC5 ESSED FOR SPINNING. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.22 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 acrylic or modacrylic stable fibers, carded, combed, or oth9 erwise processed for spinning) is amended by striking ‘‘12/ 

10 31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2405 IS

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 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 16, 2009

s0916 

# Order

September 16, 2009

138824 (91)(92)(94)

TIMOTHY PIERRON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138824 COA: 282673 Wayne CC: 99-920324-DM KELLY PIERRON, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.
The motion to strike the defendant’s non-reco rd affidavit is also GRANTED because it contains information that is not part of th e record on appeal. MCR 7.210(A)(1). The motion to vacate, in part, the Court’ s July 17, 2009 order is DENIED.
#### STATE ex rel. Keith ELLIOTT v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 86-KH-1752.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Elliott, Keith; applying for supervisory writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “D”, No. 271-217.

Denied.
Exhibit 10.25
                                TERMINATION 
                                    OF 
                         MASTER FRANCHISE AGREEMENT


     This TERMINATION is entered into effective as of October 2,1995, by 
and between Microtel Franchise and Development Corporation ("Microtel") and 
Essex Microtel International Lodging, Inc. (EMILI").

	Microtel (as Franchisor) and EMILI(as Master Franchisee) entered into 
a Master Franchise Agreement, dated February 13, 1991, pursuant to which 
Franchisor granted to Master Franchisee the rights to license separate entities
to establish and operate Microtel Hotels in Canada (excluding the Providence of
Alberta).  The Master Franchise Agreement has been amended several times; the 
most recent amendment, being the Third Amendment dated June 30, 1995, permits
Microtel to terminate the Master Franchise Agreement upon the licensing or sale
of world-wide franchising rights to a third party.

	Microtel has executed a Joint Venture Agreement with U.S.Franchise 
Systems, Inc., dated September 7, 1995, which provides for the transfer to 
U.S. Franchise Systems of the world-wide rights to franchise Microtel Hotels. 

	Therefore, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth herein 
and of the delivery to EMILI of an amended Warrant Agreement, as provided in 
Section 8 of the Third Amendment referenced above, receipt of which amended 
Warrant Agreement is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto have agrees as 
follows:

	1.     The Master Franchise Agreement, entered into as
               of February 13, 1991 and as amended to date, is hereby
               terminated and declared to be of no further force and effect.
               Any and all rights which EMILI may have attained pursuant to the
               Master Franchise Agreement (except rights under the Warrant
               Agreement ) are hereby deemed to be, and are, re-established in
               Microtel, to the effect that Microtel, and not EMILI, shall have
               the right to franchise Microtel Hotels in Canada



        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Termination 
Agreement as of the day and year first written above.


				MICROTEL FRANCHISE AND
				DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

				By:  /s/ E. Anthony Wilson 
                                    ----------------------------



				ESSEX MICROTEL INTERNATIONAL 
				LODGING, INC. 

				By:  /s/ Jerald P. Eichelberger 
                                    ----------------------------
                                    President
#### Barry H. GUNN v. ENGLE, INC.

No. 91-CA-0488.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 16, 1993.

Davey L. Tucker, Jackson, for appellant.

Suzanne N. Saunders, Saunders & Forten-berry, Rebecca L. Wiggins, Bell Corson & Brock, Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal No. 38730 from Judgment dated April 8, 1991; Robert Lewis Gibbs, Ruling Judge, Hinds County Circuit Court, First Judicial District.

Before PRATHER, P.J. and PITTMAN and McRAE, JJ.

Reversed and Remanded.

HAWKINS, C.J., DAN M. LEE, P.J., and SULLIVAN, BANKS, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., and SMITH, JJ., concur.
#### John Mack PARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BS-51.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 15, 1987.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and Phil Patterson, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

JOANOS, Judge.

John Mack Parker appeals the judgment and sentence rendered against him for robbery. He argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for acquittal and by departing from the guidelines recommendation without written departure reasons. We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

However, appellant argues correctly, supported by the record, that the trial judge, apparently inadvertently, exceeded the guidelines when he ordered that appellant serve one year of community control after his 12 year prison sentence. The judge expressly stated that he would not exceed the guidelines in sentencing appellant, as contrasted with appellant’s brother’s sentence, where the judge did depart and gave reasons for his departure. It is well settled that written reasons must be given when a court departs from the guidelines recommendation. *State v. Jackson,*478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985). The state concedes this point. We, therefore, affirm the conviction, but reverse as to the sentence and remand so that the judge can correct the sentence by striking the one year of community control.

ERVIN and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors 
Ross Technology, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-00920) on Form S-8 of Ross Technology, Inc. of our report dated July 7, 1998
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Ross Technology, Inc. and
subsidiary as of March 30, 1998 and March 31, 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for
each of the years in the three year period ended March 30, 1998 and the related
schedule, which report appears in the March 30, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K
of Ross Technology, Inc.

Our report dated July 7, 1998, contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has experienced recurring losses from operations and is
experiencing difficulty in generating sufficient cash flow to meet its
obligations and sustain its operations, and has announced its intention to begin
an orderly shutdown of its operations, which raise substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule do not include any adjustments that
might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

                                                       /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Austin, Texas
July 13, 1998
Exhibit
32.2





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 Marine Growth Ventures, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Katherine A Ostruszka, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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; and





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





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.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.





Date:  August 14,
      2008
            By:
            /s/ Katherine A
      OstruszkaKatherine
      A Ostruszka
              Chief
      Financial Officer & Controller
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.1



|             |  |   |  |                                                                                                                                                  
|------------ |  | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|EXHIBIT 32.1 |  |  |  | CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (the Form 10-Q/A) for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 of Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. (the Issuer). The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q/A fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 11, 2009
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/ MARK P. MAYS       
|Name:                   |  | Mark P. Mays           
|Title:                  |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Issuer and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32(i) CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Warren B. Mosler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Consulier Engineering, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Consulier
Engineering, Inc. and Subsidiaries. Dated:  April 14, 2004
    By:
    /s/ Warren B. MoslerWarren B. MoslerChairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive Officer E-3
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2408 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2408

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1-Acetyl-4-(3-dodecyl-2, 
         5-dioxo-1-pyrrolidinyl)-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1-Acetyl-4-(3-dodecyl-2, 
         5-dioxo-1-pyrrolidinyl)-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine.

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

SECTION 1. 1-ACETYL-4-(3-DODECYL-2, 5-DIOXO-1-PYRROLIDINYL)-2,2,6,6-
              TETRAMETHYLPIPERIDINE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.04.06 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 1-Acetyl-4-(3-dodecyl-2, 5-
dioxo-1-pyrrolidinyl)-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine) is amended 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>
```
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Bushra Company 

Under Contract No. M68450-06-M-7233 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59918 

Mrs. Bushra Mohammed 

Owner 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

ChristinaLynn E. McCoy, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PROUTY 

ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Before the Board is appellant Bushra Company's (Bushra's) timely motion for 

reconsideration of our earlier dismissal of its appeal for failure to timely appeal the 

contracting officer's final decision. We deny the motion. 

A motion for reconsideration is not the place to present arguments previously 

made and rejected. "When litigants have once battled for a decision, they should 

neither be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again. Motions 

for reconsideration do not afford litigants the opportunity to take a "'second bite at the 

apple' or to advance arguments that properly should have been presented in an earlier 

proceeding." Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citations 

omitted); see also Avant Assessment, LLC, ASBCA No. 58867, 15-1BCA~36,137 at 

176,386. 

Here, Bushra's four-sentence motion for reconsideration is nothing more than 

the rehashing of an argument that it previously presented. In its motion, Bushra argues 

that the termination for cause at issue in this appeal was the government's fault 

because the contracting officer's representative did not have a functioning email 

account (app. br.). This argument was raised by Bushra in its earlier opposition to the 

government's motion to dismiss and was duly considered by us at the time that we 

granted the government's motion. We need not address it again here, but do note that, 

as discussed in our earlier opinion, whether or not the email account at issue affected 

Bushra's ability to perform the contract, it did not preclude the filing of a timely 

appeal of the contracting officer's decision. And without such a timely appeal, we do 

not possess the authority to consider the merits of Bushra's case. 
For the reasons stated herein, we deny Bushra's request for reconsideration of 

the dismissal of ASBCA No. 59918 for lack of jurisdiction. 

Dated: 16 June 2016 

I concur 

/Z--? /! 

MARK 

d;~,~ N. STEMPLER 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

~/ 

J. REID PROUTY 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59918, Appeal ofBushra 

Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREYD. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Wayne B. HILL, Appellee.

No. 86-951.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 30, 1986.

*314Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Krauss, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals the trial court’s reasons for departing downward as not being “clear and convincing” as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll). We agree.

Appellee was tried by jury on an information charging six counts. The jury found him not guilty of four of the counts and guilty of lesser included offenses of the remaining two counts. Appellee’s scoresheet resulted in a presumptive sentence range of seventeen to twenty-two years. The court sentenced appellee to three years for a previous armed burglary conviction presently before the court for sentencing, concurrent three years for the attempted manslaughter conviction in the instant case, and a concurrent one-year sentence for the instant battery conviction. The court’s order provided the following:

> The clear and convincing reasons this Court feels that require it to depart from the guidelines is [sic] the decisions rendered by the jury and the testimony that this Court itself heard, including the testimony from the witnesses at the time of trial.

Quite the contrary from being “clear and convincing,” we feel that these reasons are no reasons at all. The testimony heard by the jury was taken into consideration when the jury rendered its verdict, the verdict that was reflected in appellee s scoresheet as points for the instant convictions. We can discern no other mitigating circumstances from this order. We therefore reverse the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing in accord with the mandates of the guidelines.

DANAHY, C.J., and SCHOONOVER and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.
Muldoon, Albert (OST) From: Sent: To: Subject: CHARLES CASEY <rancasey@gmail.com> Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:39AM EAS (OST); boonecountyairport@windstream.net; boonejudge@windstream.net; mayor@cityofharrison.com Harrison
Please allow Boutique Air as the flight service into Harrison. Myselfand many ofmy friends have requested service from Harrisonto Dallas. Also use to use the service manytimes during the horse racing season at Hot Springs. I would definitely use this airline more for mytrips to Dallas and for Dallas connections. I will not fly on anunpressurized aircraft! Thank: you, Charles Casey Branson, Mo.
·····' ··.. ···' :···
• .....: : .·· r.::· ::.)

1