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

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-2275 

_____________________________

SARA RIDGEWAY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Dixie County.

Jennifer Jones Johnson, Judge.

July 17, 2024

B.L. THOMAS, J.

Sara Ridgeway challenges her judgment and sentence 

following a plea where she reserved the right to appeal the denial 

of a dispositive motion to suppress. For the following reasons, we 

agree and reverse.

Here, a citizen approached a law enforcement officer and told 

him a woman in a nearby car was using drugs or could possibly be

having a seizure. The officer approached the vehicle, and 

Appellant was in the car with her head on the steering wheel, 

possibly sleeping. Appellant rolled down her window, and the 

officer asked her to step out of the car. She accidentally put the car 

in reverse before she got out, but she quickly stopped it. When she 
2

stepped out the car began to roll back again, and she put the car 

in park.

When the officer arrived, he could see there was no medical 

emergency, so he did not call EMS. The officer did not smell alcohol 

or marijuana. Appellant was not swaying or slurring her words.

The officer did not see any paraphernalia in the car. He did not see 

any furtive movements.

Appellant told the officer how embarrassed she was at being 

detained at the gas station. She was pacing and stayed close to the 

car; she indicated her child was in the car. 

The officer asked for consent to search her car but she 

declined. The officer then called an officer with a dog, who took 

about 10 minutes to arrive. The dog alerted, and the car was 

searched, which led to her arrest.

A suspect can be detained if there was reasonable suspicion of 

criminal activity. The investigation into that suspicion can be for 

a reasonable period of time. See Flowers v. State, 290 So. 3d 642, 

644 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). But once the investigation is over, the 

detention must stop. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 357

(2015). There is no de minimis exception to an unlawful detention. 

Wooden v. State, 244 So. 3d 1170, 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). 

Here, the tip provided a basis for approaching Appellant. But 

after the officer’s initial investigation revealed no indication of 

medical emergency or drug use, there was no reasonable suspicion 

to hold Appellant for an additional 10 minutes to wait for the K-9 

to arrive. Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying the motion 

to suppress. 

REVERSED.

BILBREY and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.
3

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina Day Piotrowski,

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 23.1



LOGO





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors

New Hampshire Thrift Bancshares, Inc.



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-31737 and No. 333-66305) on Form S-8 of New Hampshire
Thrift Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated January 8, 2004 with respect to the consolidated statements of financial condition of New Hampshire Thrift Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders equity, cash flows and comprehensive income, for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003 which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2003 of New Hampshire Thrift Bancshares, Inc.

/s/    Shatswell, MacLeod & Company, P.C.SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.




West Peabody, Massachusetts

March 17, 2004



LOGO
#### Leroy R. GRAVOIS, d/b/a Rock’s Multi-Service, Inc., and Rock’s Multi-Services, Inc., and the St. John the Baptist Parish School Board v. STATE of Louisiana, Through its DEPARTMENT OF STATE CIVIL SERVICE, COMMISSION ON ETHICS FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.

No. 87-CC-0983.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Ethics Commission Pub. Emp.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW86 1605; State Civil Service Commission, No. 86-188.

*57Prior report: La., 503 So.2d 1005.

Granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the case is remanded for briefing, argument and opinion. See *In re Beychok,*495 So.2d 1278, (La.1986); La.R.S. 42:1102(18)(d) and (19); 42:1113, 1123(4).
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of WNC California Housing
Tax Credits, L.P. (the "Partnership") for the year ended March 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper,  Jr., President and Chief
Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify 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 result of operations of
          the Partnership.


/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.




Date: November 12, 2007
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 56

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas American children and adolescents spend between

22 and 28 hours each week viewing television;

Whereas American homes have an average of 2.75 television

sets, and 87 percent of homes with children have more

than 1 television set;

Whereas there is a need to increase the availability of programs suitable for the entire family during prime time

viewing hours;

Whereas surveys of television content demonstrate that many

programs contain substantial sexual or violent content;

Whereas although parents are ultimately responsible for appropriately supervising their children’s television viewing,

it is also important to provide positive, ‘‘family friendly’’

programming that is suitable for parents and children to

watch together;

Whereas efforts should be made by television networks, studios, and the production community to produce more

quality family friendly programs and to air those programs during times when parents and children are likely

to be viewing together;

Whereas members of the Family Friendly Programming

Forum are concerned about the availability of family
2

SCON 56 ES

friendly television programs during prime time viewing

hours; and

Whereas Congress encourages activities by the Forum and

other entities designed to promote family friendly programming, including—

(1) participating in meetings with leadership of

major television networks, studios, and production companies to express concerns;

(2) expressing the importance of family friendly programming at industry conferences, meetings, and forums;

(3) honoring outstanding family friendly television

programs with a new tribute, the Family Program

Awards, to be held annually in Los Angeles, California;

(4) establishing a development fund to finance family friendly scripts; and

(5) underwriting scholarships at television studies

departments at institutions of higher education to encourage student interest in family friendly programming:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That Congress—

3 (1) recognizes and honors the efforts of the

4 Family Friendly Programming Forum and other en5 tities supporting family friendly programming;

6 (2) supports efforts to encourage television net7 works, studios, and the production community to

8 produce more quality family friendly programs;

9 (3) supports the proposed Family Friendly Pro10 gramming Awards, development fund, and scholar-
3

SCON 56 ES

1 ships, all of which are designed to encourage, recog2 nize, and celebrate creative excellence in, and com3 mitment to, family friendly programming; and

4 (4) encourages the media and American adver5 tisers to further a family friendly television environ6 ment within which appropriate advertisements can

7 accompany the programming.

Passed the Senate September 16, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 56

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the importance of ‘‘family friendly’’ programming on

television.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16566-16567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6803]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permit Applications Received under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications Received under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a 
notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated 
under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541. NSF 
has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 
45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required 
notice of permit applications received.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, 
or views with respect to this permit application by April 20, 2012. 
This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit 
Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Polly A. Penhale at the above address 
or (703) 292-7420.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Science Foundation, as

[[Page 16567]]

directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as 
amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, 
has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for 
various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and 
certain geographic areas as requiring special protection. The 
regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic 
Specially Protected Areas.
    The applications received are as follows:

Permit Application: 2012-016

    1. Applicant: Lockheed Martin Corporation, Information Systems & 
Global Solutions (I&GS), Engineering Services Segment, Celia Lang, 
Program Director (Principal in Charge), 7400 South Tucson Way, 
Centennial, CO 80112.

Activity for Which Permit Is Requested

    Enter Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs). The applicant 
plans to only transit through the marine ASPAs (ASPA 145--Port Foster, 
Deception Caldera, ASPA 152--Western Bransfield Strait, and ASPA 153--
Eastern Dallmann Bay) when truly necessary. The areas' management plans 
allow transit through the areas so long as doing so does not jeopardize 
the values to be protected in each ASPA.

Location

    ASPA 145--Port Foster, Deception Caldera, ASPA 152--Western 
Bransfield Strait, and ASPA 153--Eastern Dallmann Bay.

Dates

    April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2017.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-6803 Filed 3-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Placer del Mar, Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Humberto Bravo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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; and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
7th day of November, 2007.


/s/ Humberto Bravo
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
p130646.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0646

Focus Ready Draft 7/18/2013

ENGINEER: Avcin \ AG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1

p130646.eng

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0646

 

 

 

 

 

Page 3
p130646.eng

 

 

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0646

 

 

 

 

Page 4

p130646.eng

 

Page 6
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 12857-002; Project No. 14073-000]

                    The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,[1]                                          for proposed projects to be located on the Mississippi River, in St. James Parish, Louisiana. The applications were filed by FFP Project 18, LLC for Project No. 12857-002, and Northland Power Mississippi River LLC for Project No. 14073-000.                

                    On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.[2]                                          The priority established by this drawing will be used to determine which applicant, among those with identical filing times, will be considered to have the first-filed application.                

The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.

Dated: January 10, 2012.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any document received after regular business hours is considered filed at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2) (2011).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             18 CFR 4.37 (2011).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2012-695 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### A.G. EDWARDS & SONS, INC., and Dan G.S. Wright, Appellants, v. Jack WILSON, Trustee, U/D/T July 24, 1978 F/B/O Jack Wilson and Sandra M. Wilson, Trustee, U/D/T July 24, 1978 F/B/O Sandra M. Wilson, Appellees.

No. 87-1284.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 4, 1987.

*1151Joan M. Vecchioli of Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A., Clear-water, for appellants.

Larry G. Rightmyer, St. Petersburg, for appellees.

DANAHY, Chief Judge.

The appellants filed in the trial court a motion to compel arbitration. The trial judge entered orders granting the appellants’ motion, thus determining that the appellants are entitled to arbitration. In his orders, the trial judge also directed that the appellants initiate arbitration proceedings before the American Arbitration Association within a period of time specified by the trial judge. The appellants are aggrieved by these conditions and have filed a notice of appeal from the orders entered on their motion to compel arbitration.

There is no issue here as to the appellants’ entitlement to arbitration. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v) permits review by this court of a nonfinal order which determines “whether a party is entitled to arbitration.” Review of nonfinal orders is limited to those specifically described in rule 9.130(a)(3). We interpret the rule to mean that a party is entitled to interlocutory review by this court of an issue of entitlement to arbitration. We do not believe the rule permits an appeal where the issues relate to collateral matters, such as in this case. The thrust of rule 9.130 is to restrict the number of appealable nonfinal orders. *Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bruns,*443 So.2d 959 (Fla.1984).

Accordingly, we have concluded that the appellants seek review of matters which are not appealable at this time and, therefore, we have no jurisdiction. We have considered treating this case as a petition for certiorari but, even though the trial judge may have departed from the essential requirements of the law, there is no basis for concluding that irreparable injury would be suffered by the appellants; the error, if any, can be rectified on plenary appeal. We note that a conflicting position on the certiorari question is expressed in *Davidson v. Foshee Enterprises, Inc.,*467 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal.

SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      I, Jiangping Jiang, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Universal
Travel Group.

      2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

            a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
and

            b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

            a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data; and

            b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


Date: December 2, 2007                  /s/ Jiangping Jiang
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:   Jiangping Jiang
                                        Title:  Chairman and Chief Executive
                                        Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

No. 08-16-00109-CV

IN RE: §

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

§

FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF 

TEXAS, LLC,

IN MANDAMUS

§

Relator.

§

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion which requests dismissal of this original 

proceeding. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a). The same motion has been filed in the related direct 

appeal, Family Dollar Stores of Texas, LLC v. Ana Maria Ramirez, No. 08-16-00111-CV. The 

parties represent in the motion that the trial court has entered an order stating that upon dismissal 

of this original proceeding, the trial court’s May 16, 2016 order will be vacated, and the parties 

will be compelled to arbitrate pursuant to their agreement. The parties request that we dismiss 

the original proceeding, but the motion also asks the Court to set aside the trial court’s order 

dated May 16, 2016 without regard to the merits and remand the case for rendition of judgment 

in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An appellate court cannot dismiss an appeal or 

original proceeding, and at the same time, grant affirmative relief in the case. Consequently, we 
2

have construed the motion as requesting dismissal of the original proceeding. We grant the 

motion and dismiss this original proceeding. 

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

July 29, 2016

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.