alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael LIVINGSTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 69807.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 16, 1987.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit and Brynn Newton, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Belle B. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a petition to review *Livingston v. State,*497 So.2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), concerning the retroactive application of section 27.3455(1), Florida Statutes (1985), which requires that all court costs and court fees shall be paid in full prior to granting a prisoner gain time. The district court certified the following question of great public importance:

> Does the application of section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985) to crimes committed prior to the effective date of the statute violate the ex post facto provisions of the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of Florida, or does the statute merely effect a procedural change as is permitted under *State v. Jackson,*478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985)?

497 So.2d at 999. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

*296In *Yost v. State,*489 So.2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), the district court certified the identical question which we rephrased as follows:

> Does application of the penalty provisions of section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), to crimes committed prior to the effective date of the statute violate the ex post facto provisions of the Constitutions of the United States and Florida?

*State v. Yost,*507 So.2d 1099, 1101 (Fla.1987). We held the statute unconstitutional in its application to crimes committed prior to its effective date and answered the rephrased question in the affirmative.

In accordance with our decision in *Yost,*we approve the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in the instant case.

It is so ordered.

McDonald, C.J., and EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ. concur.
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

William H. Joyce, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of Nalco Holdings LLC("Nalco") and Bradley J. Bell, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of Nalco, in conjunction with thefiling of Nalco's 10-Q financial report (the"Report") with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, covering the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2005, herebycertify as follows:

|          |                                                                                           |
|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| a.  | The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and |

|          |                                                                                                                                    |
|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| b.  | The information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operation for Nalco. |

|  | /s/  WILLIAM H.JOYCE                             William H.Joyce Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Date: May 12,2005 |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | /s/  BRADLEY J.BELL                                 BradleyJ. Bell Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer Date: May 12, 2005 |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.8

                                VOYAGER ONE, INC.

                           NOTICE OF CONVERSION RIGHT

To The Holder Of Voyager One, Inc. Convertible Notes:

         Voyager One, Inc. (the "Company") hereby notifies you that your
Convertible Note in the original principal amount of $_________dated ______ (the
"Note") will be convertible into ___________shares of restricted common stock of
the Company on July 25, 2005, at a conversion price of $______per share. In
order to exercise the conversion privilege with respect to the Note, you must
return a completed and executed Election of Conversion to the Company at the
following address: Voyager One, Inc, 859 West End Court, Suite I, Vernon Hills,
Illinois 60061, Attention: Sebastien DuFort.


                                           VOYAGER ONE, INC.

                                           Signature:  _________________________

                                           Name:  ______________________________

                                           Title:  _____________________________

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

                          ELECTION OF CONVERSION RIGHT

         The undersigned hereby irrevocably elects to convert
$________________consisting of all of the outstanding principal balance of, and
accrued interest on, the Note into ____________shares of restricted common stock
of the Company on July 25, 2005, at a conversion price of $_______per share, and
directs that the certificates representing the restricted conversion shares
issuable and deliverable upon conversion be issued and delivered to the
undersigned at the address set forth below.

         The undersigned expressly represents and warrants to the Company that:
(A) it is an "Accredited Investor" as such term is defined in Regulation D of
the Securities Act of 1933; (B) it is capable of evaluating the merits of
converting the Note; (C) it has either secured independent tax advice with
respect to conversion of the Note, upon which it is solely relying, or it is
sufficiently familiar with the income tax consequences of conversion of the Note
that it has deemed such independent advice unnecessary.

Date:  ________________________________  Date:  _______________________________

Signature:  ___________________________  Signature:  __________________________

Print Name: ___________________________  Print Name: __________________________

Address:  _____________________________  Address:  ____________________________

_______________________________________  ______________________________________

_______________________________________  ______________________________________

Tax ID:  ______________________________  Tax ID: ______________________________

Phone:  _______________________________  Phone: _______________________________
```

[Federal Register: August 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 154)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 48627]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11au10-24]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0871; FRL-9188-4]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland; Transportation Conformity Regulations; Withdrawal of Proposed 
Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 18, 2010 (75 FR 34669), EPA published a proposed rule 
to approve revisions to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
The revisions amended Maryland's transportation conformity regulations 
and general conformity regulations. EPA's approval did not include 
Maryland's regulation regarding conflict resolution associated with 
conformity determinations (COMAR 26.11.26.06). EPA has determined that 
it cannot proceed with approval of these SIP revisions until and unless 
it also approves Maryland's regulation regarding conflict resolution 
associated with conformity determinations. Therefore, EPA is 
withdrawing its proposed rule to approve Maryland's conformity 
regulations. This withdrawal action is being taken under section 110 of 
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: The proposed rule published June 18, 2010 (75 FR 34669) is 
withdrawn as of August 11, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0871 for 
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at 
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at Air Protection Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Martin Kotsch, (215) 814-3335, or by 
e-mail at kotsch.martin@epa.gov.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 
compounds.

    Dated: August 2, 2010.
W. C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2010-19804 Filed 8-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### Cateno MANCUSO, Appellant, v. Michelle MANCUSO, Appellee.

No. 88-138.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 11, 1988.

*1058Zaremba and Rosenthal and Russell K. Rosenthal, Miami, for appellant.

Eduardo I. Rasco, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Matilla v. Matilla,*474 So.2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 163 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 163

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day 
  and expressing the sense of Congress that history be regarded as a 
   means of understanding the past and solving the challenges of the 
                                future.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 163

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas news of the end of slavery did not reach frontier areas of the country 
        until long after the conclusion of the Civil War, especially in the 
        Southwestern United States;
Whereas the African Americans who had been slaves in the Southwest thereafter 
        celebrated June 19, known as Juneteenth Independence Day, as the 
        anniversary of their emancipation;
Whereas these African Americans handed down that tradition from generation to 
        generation as an inspiration and encouragement for future generations;
Whereas Juneteenth Independence Day celebrations have thus been held for 136 
        years to honor the memory of all those who endured slavery and 
        especially those who moved from slavery to freedom; and
Whereas the faith and strength of character shown by these former slaves remains 
        an example for all people of the United States, regardless of 
        background, region, or race: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That--
            (1) Congress recognizes the historical significance of 
        Juneteenth Independence Day, an important date in the Nation's 
        history, and encourages the continued celebration of this day 
        to provide an opportunity for all people of the United States 
        to learn more about the past and to better understand the 
        experiences that have shaped the Nation; and
            (2) it is the sense of Congress that--
                    (A) history be regarded as a means for 
                understanding the past and solving the challenges of 
                the future; and
                    (B) the celebration of the end of slavery is an 
                important and enriching part of the history and 
                heritage of the United States.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 19, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

06-11066 Summary Calendar

TARRANCE DARON WHITLOCK Petitioner-Appellant

v. NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CV-1232
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pursuant to a certificate of appealability granted by this court in August 2007, Tarrance Daron Whitlock, Texas prisoner # 930799, appeals, pro se , the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as time barred. In his petition, Whitlock challenges his bench-trial conviction, and resulting sentence, for aggravated assault of a public servant. In that bench trial, pursuant to a separate indictment, Whitlock was also convicted and sentenced United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 8, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-11066

2 on a separate charge of aggravated robbery. Following the joint bench trial, Whitlock pursued a separate appeal for each of the two convictions. Whitlock challenged the separate aggravated-robbery conviction in a prior § 2254 petition. We reject the State’s assertion that the instant petition, concerning the separate aggravated-assault conviction, is an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. See Hardemon v. Quarterman, 516 F.3d 272, 275-76 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding a habeas petition is not successive when it attacks separatejudgments from the same court). The initial filing ofWhitlock’s state postconviction application challenging that aggravated-assault conviction did not constitute a “properly filed” application for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (staying AEDPA’s period of limitation for “properly filed” state post-conviction applic ations) because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals determined the application failed to comply with Rule 73.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (requiring postconviction applications to be on the form prescribed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). See Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000); Larry v. Dretke , 361 F.3d 890, 895 (5th Cir. 2004). Whitlock has not shown the State created an unconstitutional or unlawful impediment to his filing his instant federal petition concerning his aggravated-assault conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B). Moreover, Whitlock has failed to show circumstances warranting equitable toll ing from the time he initially filed his state postconviction application to the time that application was returned to him for noncompliance. See Larry, 361 F.3d at 897. Accordingly, the dismissal of Whitlock’s petition as time barred is AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MANUEL MORALES, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § No. 565, 2014 § § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware, § in and for New Castle County § Cr. No. 1309012678 § § Submitted: October 10, 2014 Decided: October 20, 2014

Before STRINE , Chief Justice, RIDGELY , and VALIHURA , Justices.

ORDER

This 20 th day of October 2014, it appears to the Court that: (1) On October 2, 2014, the appellant, Manuel Morales, filed a notice of appeal from his conviction on criminal charges in t he Superior Court on May 20, 2014. The appellant has not yet been sentenced. T he Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why his appea l should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider an ap peal in a criminal matter in the Superior Court where the defendant has yet to be se ntenced. (2) The appellant filed a response to the notice to sho w cause on October 10, 2014. In his response, the appellant states th at he is scheduled to be sentenced on October 31, 2014. The response addresses the me rits of the appellant’s appeal,2

but does not respond to the jurisdictional limitati on raised in the notice to show

cause. (3) This Court’s jurisdiction in criminal cases is limi ted to the review of final judgments. 1 A criminal conviction does not become final until the sentence is imposed. 2 The appellant has not yet been sentenced in this c ase. Accordingly, the appellant’s conviction is not final and the Court l acks jurisdiction to consider it. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice

1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).

2 Hunter v. State , 209 A.2d 469, 470 (Del. 1965).
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 384 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 384

                 A resolution relative to rule XXXIII.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           November 14 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
                 A resolution relative to rule XXXIII.

    Resolved, That, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXXIII, the 
Senate authorize the videotaping of the address by the Senator from 
West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) to the incoming Senators scheduled to be given 
in the Senate Chamber in December 2000.
                                 <all>
```
Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation 
  
 Effective June 1, 2005, we began paying each of our non-employee directors a monthly stipend of $1,000, and a per meeting
fee of $1,500. In addition, the chairman of the Audit Committee receives $4,000 for each meeting of the Audit Committee attended. Furthermore, under our Restated 2002 Director Option Plan, each non-employee director receives 14,286 options on the
date of his or her first election or appointment. In addition, each non-employee director receives 14,286 options on the date of the first board meeting following our annual meeting of stockholders or the 12-month anniversary of the last grant under
the plan, whichever is later.
**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 Quarterly Report of Macquarie Infrastructure Company
        Trust
        (the “Trust”) and Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC (the “Company”) on
        Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
        Francis T. Joyce, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
        to
        18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
        belief:
  (1)
              the
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b)
                  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
                  Trust
                  and the Company.
  
 /s/  Francis
        T. Joyce
 Francis
        T. Joyce
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 May 8, 2007
 
  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.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2380 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain carry-all sleeves with small, 

built-in amplifiers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain carry-all sleeves 

with small, built-in amplifiers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN CARRY-ALL SLEEVES WITH SMALL, 

4 BUILT-IN AMPLIFIERS. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2380 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Polyester sleeve (provided for 

in subheading 6307.90.98) 

with dimensions not exceeding approximately 330 mm H 

x 267 mm W x 51 mm D, 

with a main compartment secured with a hook and loop 

strap closure on the top edge, 

having a front exterior panel 

of ethylene-vinyl acetate material covered in polyester 

fabric, and having two 

gusseted neoprene compartments on the front, with a 

small, battery-operated amplifier ..................................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS