alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KESSEL CONSTRUCTION CORP., Robert K. Kessel and Elizabeth M. Kessel, Appellants, v. FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK, Appellee.

No. 87-1867.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 2, 1988.

Gary S. Blake of Peckar, Abramson & Pershes, P.A., Coral Springs, for appellants.

Eric H. Faddis of Gibson and Adams, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand on the authority of this court’s en banc decision in *Carlin*i *v. State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs,*521 So.2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7264

CALVIN PRESSLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden; JOSEPH CURRAN, Attorney General; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00- 2378-L) Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 25, 2001 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Pressley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Calvin Pressley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Pressley v. Corcoran , No. CA-00-2378-L (D. Md. filed Aug. 11; entered Aug. 14, 2000). We dispense withoral 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
RECEIVED ON:

STATE OF IDAHO

DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

t,'EC 2 8 2U15

Avvf

EPA Region 10

Office of the Regional Administrator

1410 North Hilton • Boise, Idaho 83706 • (208) 373-0502 C.L. "Butch" Otter, Governor

www.deq.idaho.gov John H. Tippets, Director

December 22, 2015 RECEIVED

Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator

USEPA Region 10, MS RA-140

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

RE: One-year extension request of the attainment date for the Logan UT/ID Nonattainment Area

Dear Mr. McLerran:

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hereby requests a one-year extension of

the attainment date for the Idaho portion of the Logan UT/1D nonattainment area (NAA). Idaho

believes that the entire NAA, including the Utah portion, qualifies for the one-year extension of

the attainment date.

Franklin County, Idaho, a sparsely populated rural area, was designated as part of the cross

border Logan UT/ID NAA for PM2.5 , effective December 14, 2009 (74 FR 58688). Straddling

the border between Utah and Idaho, this NAA presents unique challenges with respect to

topographical features and jurisdictional authority issues a NAA that spans two states (UtahIdaho) and two EPA regions (Region 8-Region 10).

As required by the CAA, DEQ submitted a Nonattainment State Implementation Plan (SIP) to

address air quality issues on the Idaho side of the Logan UT/ID PM2,5 NAA to EPA. By

submitting this plan DEQ met all CAA regulatory deadlines for PM2,5 NAAs. The initial plan,

submitted in December 2012, satisfied requirements from EPA's 2007 Fine Particle

Implementation Rule, which was grounded in the CAA, Title I, Part Subpart 1. In December

2014, DEQ submitted a PM25 SIP amendment to satisfy federal PM25 SIP requirements under

CAA, Title I, Part D, Subpart 4, as required by the Identification of Nonattainment Classification

and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine

Particle (PM25 ) NAAQS and the 2006 PM2 5 NAAQS final rule (79 FR 31566).

On March 25, 2014, EPA approved some of the control measures contained in Idaho's 2012

submittal (79 FR 16201). On July 18, 2014, EPA also approved the comprehensive emissions

inventory of PM2.5 and precursors required under CAA section 172(c)(3) (79 FR 41904).

Then, on November 9, 2015 (50 FR 69172) EPA proposed to reclassify the Idaho portion of the

multi-state Logan UT/ID NAA to serious nonattainment. In a companion proposal

Office Of Air, Wztole-i$tTl~
#### STATE ex rel Leslie F. WALGAMOTTE v. Edwin LOMBARD, Clerk of Court.

No. 88-KH-1072.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1988.

In re Walgamotte, Leslie F.; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “B”, No. 263-730; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 88KW-0461.

Denied. Relator has not shown particularized need.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 313 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 313

 To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in Harold A. 
                     Johnson v. Max Cleland, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2000

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in Harold A. 
                     Johnson v. Max Cleland, et al.

Whereas Senator Max Cleland has been named as a defendant in the case of Harold 
        A. Johnson v. Max Cleland, et al., Case No. 2000CV22443, now pending in 
        the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent Members of the Senate in civil actions 
        with respect to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Senator Max Cleland in the case of Harold A. Johnson v. Max Cleland, et 
al.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE ex rel. James Earl WILLIAMS v. CLERK OF COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS.

No. 86-KH-1070.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1986.

In re Williams, James Earl; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 235-114.

Granted. Trial court ordered to act within 15 days.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Enso LILLO, Appellee.

No. 86-2092.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 1, 1987.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Gary 0. Welch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and D.P. Chanco, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.

SANDERLIN, Judge.

In this appeal, the state contends that the trial court erred in withholding adjudication of guilt from the defendant’s judgment. We agree and reverse.

The defendant was charged with two counts of bookmaking, in violation of section 849.25, Florida Statutes (1985). He pleaded nolo contendere to the charges, with the understanding that adjudication would be withheld. The state objected, arguing that section 849.25(2) required an adjudication of guilt. Nevertheless, the trial court accepted the defendant’s plea, placed him on community control, and withheld adjudication of guilt.

Section 849.25(2) provides in pertinent part:

> Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 948.01, any person convicted under the provisions of this subsection shall not have adjudication of guilt suspended, deferred, or withheld.

It is clear that the term “convicted” as used in the statute also encompasses a plea of nolo contendere.

Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s judgment, and remand for further proceedings where the defendant shall be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea.

RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
#### Dorothy J. HAMMOND, Petitioner, v. Hon. E.L. EASTMOORE, as Circuit Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Florida, Respondent.

No. 87-1715.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Oct. 8, 1987.

Huntley Johnson, Gainesville, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

SHARP, Judge.

This cause is before this court on a petition for writ of prohibition occasioned by the refusal of the respondent, the Honorable E.L. Eastmore, to recuse himself after a motion for disqualification was filed.

Were the motion in compliance with Section 38.10, Florida Statutes (1985) and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.230, we would order the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be issued. However, the motion is legally insufficient in that it fails to include affidavits as required by the statute and the rule and there is no certificate of counsel that the motion is made in good faith. An acknowledgment before a notary public is attached to the motion; however, the petitioner merely acknowledges that she executed the motion, she does not swear that the facts alleged are true. *See McGibeny v. Smith,*511 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

WRIT DENIED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.
#### Alexander et al. *v.*Knight, Appellant.

Argued December 11, 1961.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Rhodes, P. J., absent).

*80Before Waters, J.

*Charles L.*Ford, with him *Max E.*Cohen, for appellant.

*Bomolo J.*DiCintio, with him *Edward W.*Furia, and *Furia &*DiCintio, for appellees.

January 16, 1962:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The order of the Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Charles A. Waters for the court below, reported at 25 Pa. D. & C. 2d 649.
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

      ( print page 18216)    

# TIME AND DATE: 

10 a.m., Friday April 6, 2012.

# PLACE: 

1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# Matters To Be Considered:

 

                        Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the event that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at                         *http://www.cftc.gov.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2012-7447 Filed 3-23-12; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
391 A.2d 685

#### Commonwealth v. Janis, Appellant.

Submitted April 10, 1978.

Ronald P. Rusinak, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Dennis M. McGlynn, Assistant District Attorney, and D. Gerard Long, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
**EXHIBIT32**

**CERTIFICATION**

Each of the undersignedofficers of NeuroMetrix, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies to hisknowledge that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q to whichthis certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: May 10, 2006 |   | /s/ Shai N. Gozani, M.D., Ph.D.       |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                    |   | Shai N. Gozani, M.D., Ph.D.           |
|                    |   | Chief Executive Officer and President |
|                    |   |                                  |
|                    |   |                                  |
|                    |   | /s/ W. Bradford Smith                 |
|                    |   | W. Bradford Smith                     |
|                    |   | Chief Financial Officer               |

 

This certification isbeing furnished and not filed, and shall not be incorporated into any documentfor any purpose, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the SecuritiesAct of 1933.

 

----
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-1868

Lower Tribunal No. 2020CF000731XXXAXX

_____________________________

GILBERTO ABREU,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County.

John D.W. Beamer, Judge.

February 13, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOZNIAK, SMITH and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tabitha Mills, Assistant 

Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Exhibit 31.2

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

I, John A. Flanagan, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the MacroShares $100 Oil Up Trust;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4.

The 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, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

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

c.

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

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

a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves persons who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2008

| |                                                               
| | --------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ John A. Flanagan                                          
| | John A. Flanagan                                              
| | Chief Financial Officer of Depositor, 
on behalf of Registrant
#### FIRST NATIONWIDE SAVINGS, Appellant, v. William O. THOMAS and Rita H. Thomas, his wife, Appellees.

No. 4-86-3167.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 14, 1987.

Nancy K. Neidich of Shapiro, Rose & Fishman, Miami, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

LETTS, Judge.

This appeal emanates from a final judgment of mortgage foreclosure. The ensuing sale was first stayed because of a bankruptcy proceeding involving the delinquent *805borrower. A subsequent sale date was again postponed because the lender had not received bidding instructions from the Veterans Administration, which instructions were a necessary predicate to the lender enforcing its V.A. guarantee. Pursuant to this second postponement, the trial court entered the following order reproduced below:

> ORDER CANCELLING AND RESCHEDULING FORECLOSURE SALE

> THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard ex parte, upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Cancel and Reschedule Foreclosure Sale in the referenced cause, and the Court having considered same and being fully advised in the premises, it is

> ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

> 1. That the Clerk’s sale in the above referenced cause to be held on NOVEMBER 17, 1986, is hereby cancelled.

> 2. That the sale of subject property shall not be reheld.

> DONE AND ORDERED.

The appellant objects to the language in paragraph 2 commanding “that the sale of [the] subject property shall not be reheld.”

This permanent cancellation of the sale without explanation is reversible error. Indeed, the appellee has not even bothered to file a brief in support of such a result. A lender has the right, under the statutes, except under extraordinary circumstances not found in this record, to proceed with the sale of any real estate on which it has successfully foreclosed its mortgage.

Accordingly, this cause is reversed with instructions to require the trial court to set a date for the sale of this property, forthwith.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L AWR E NC E R E MS E N, P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF T HE ST ATE OF C AL I F ORNI A; J AME S E . T I L T ON ; J AM ES DA VI S; M . M ARTE L; ARNO LD SCH W A RZEN EG G A R, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15756 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 4 4 7 - F C DEFB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia F r ank C . D a m r e l l , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r27, 2011 ** S an F r an c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: F A R R IS , B E E Z E R , an dL E A V Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED MA R 06 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

L a w r e n c e R e m s e n ap p e a ls p r o s e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e rd is m is s in g h is pe t i t i on f orhabe a s c orpus unde r28 U . S . C . § 2254. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s uant t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. T he fa ct s of the ca se ar e kno w n t o the part i es . W e r epea t th em o n l y as n ecessary. T he A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l tyA c t( A E D P A ) ba r s the f i l i ng of s e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve pe t i t i ons unl e s s the pr i s one rha s obt a i ne d a n or de rf r om the ap p r o p r ia te c o u rt o f

ap p e a ls au th o r iz in g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to c o n s id e rth e p e titio n . 28 U . S . C . § 2244( b) ( 3) ( A ) –( E ) . I f apr i s one rf

a i l s t o obt a i n s uc h an or de r , the d is tr ic t c o u rt la c k s ju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rth e p e titio n a n ds h o u ldd is m is s it. B u rto n v. Stew a rt , 5 4 9 U .S . 1 4 7 , 1 5 7 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ( p e rc u r iu m ) . R em se n fi l ed a f

eder alhabeas pet i t i on i n 2 00 2, w hi ch w as di sm i ss ed as u n tim e lyu n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . T h is c o n s titu te s ad is m is s a l o n th e m e r its u n d e rA E D P A , McN

ab b v. Y ates , 576 F . 3d 1028, 1029 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , m a ki ng the 2 0 0 2 p etit io n R em se n ’s firs t fed er al h ab ea s p etit io n fo r th e p u rp o se s o f A E D P A ’s baron s e c ond pe t i t i ons . T he r e f or e w he n R e m s e n s oughtt o f i l e the i ns t antpe t i t i on in 2 0 0 8 , h e w a s o b lig a te dto o b ta in a n o r d e rf r o m th is c o u rt au th o r iz in g th e f ilin g . T he di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y hel d thathi s f ai l ure t o d o so m eantthati tl ac ked3

j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der the pet i t i on . A cc ordi ng l y, the j ud gm entof the di stri ctcourt is a f f irm e d . R e m s e n ’s p e n d in g m o tio n to ta k e ju d ic ia l n o tic e is d e n ie da s m o o t. A FFI R M ED
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 36

Authorizing the taking of photographs in the Chamber of the United States

Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. MCCONNELL, and Mr. DODD)

submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Authorizing the taking of photographs in the Chamber of

the United States Senate.

1 Resolved, That paragraph 1 of rule IV of the Rules

2 for the Regulation of the Senate Wing of the United

3 States Capitol (prohibiting the taking of pictures in the

4 Senate Chamber) be temporarily suspended for the sole

5 and specific purpose of permitting photographs to be

6 taken on February 11 or 12, 1999, during the roll call

7 vote on the Articles of Impeachment in the impeachment

8 trial of the President of the United States.

9 SEC. 2. The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is au10 thorized and directed to make the necessary arrangements
2

•SRES 36 ATS

1 therefor, which arrangements shall provide for a minimum

2 of disruption to Senate proceedings.

Æ