alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Joel E. RILEY, Appellee.

No. 87-1609.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 13, 1988.

*1082Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Michele L. Crawford and Stephen Scott, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN, J., and JOSEPH P. McNULTY, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals from a downward departure from sentencing guidelines.

Appellee was convicted of attempted murder in the first degree, robbery and burglary of a conveyance. His guidelines sentence scoresheet computed out to twelve to seventeen years. The trial court departed downward, however, imposing concurrent sentences of seven years for each offense. The trial court cited two reasons for the departure: the defendant’s youth (three days short of twenty-one at the time of the offenses) and his lack of a prior felony record. Neither reason is sustainable.

Assuming age twenty-one to qualify as “youthfulness” which may, under certain circumstances, justify a downward departure from sentencing guidelines, such youthfulness of itself is an invalid reason for downward departure absent additional factors such as lack of ordinary intelligence or marked emotional immaturity. *Cf. State v. Myers,*515 So.2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Concerning the second reason, i.e., defendant’s lack of a prior felony record, appellee concedes that lack of a criminal record of itself is not a valid reason for downward departure. *See Sanders v. State,*510 So.2d 296 (Fla.1987). But he urges that when considering such reason in the light of the first reason (coupled further with the fact that the trial court had stated at sentencing that “the incident appears to be an aberration in the life of this young man”, thus implying, it is suggested, a significant degree of emotional immaturity) the two reasons together mutually and reciprocally support each other as valid reasons. We disagree. Clearly, no matter how you cut it, the second reason is simply and impermissibly an oblique reliance on the absence of a prior criminal record, already factored into the guidelines score-sheet. It adds nothing to the first reason, nor does the first add to the second.

The sentences appealed from are therefore vacated and set aside and the cause remanded for appropriate sentences within the guidelines.
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 293

Encouraging all residents of the United States to complete their census

forms to ensure the most accurate enumeration of the population possible.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 13, 2000

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. BRYAN, Mr.

TORRICELLI, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. REID, Mr. HARKIN, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr.

FEINGOLD, Mr. KERREY, Mr. KOHL, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. MIKULSKI,

Mr. DORGAN, Mr. ROBB, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. REED,

and Mrs. BOXER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Govermental Affairs

RESOLUTION

Encouraging all residents of the United States to complete

their census forms to ensure the most accurate enumeration of the population possible.

Whereas the Constitution requires an actual enumeration of

the population every 10 years;

Whereas Federal, State, and local governments, as well as

charities and other groups serving Americans, use information gathered by the census to distribute hundreds of

billions of dollars for programs from education to employment, housing to transportation, and rural development

to urban empowerment;
2

•SRES 293 IS

Whereas inaccurate or incomplete census data would make it

impossible for this aid to be distributed appropriately or

fairly and would prevent critically needed funding from

finding its way to the appropriate recipients;

Whereas inaccurate or incomplete census data would also

throw into doubt the ability to correctly apportion representation in Congress or equitably redraw voting district lines within the States, raising questions about

whether the one-person-one-vote rights of Americans are

being appropriately guarded;

Whereas the privacy of all data collected by the Bureau of

the Census is guaranteed absolute confidentiality for 72

years from the public and all other government agencies;

and

Whereas the Bureau of the Census cannot conduct its constitutional or legal duties and Americans cannot be assured of the integrity of the census results, and therefore

the equity of all of the manifold decisions that rely upon

census numbers, without the fullest possible participation

from the public: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—

2 (1) it is the civic duty of Americans to assist

3 in ensuring the most accurate census possible; and

4 (2) all residents of the United States should

5 complete their census forms.

Æ
#### Fritz BAKKER, Hendrick M. Bakker, Jacob Bakker, and James R. Vernon, Petitioners, v. The EMPIRE SAVINGS, BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION and Nancy J. Flett, Public Trustee for the County of Jefferson, Respondents.

No. 81 SC 280.

Supreme Court of Colorado.

March 12, 1982.

ORDER OF COURT

Upon consideration of the Stipulation to Dismiss Appeal, 634 P.2d 1021, filed herein, and now being sufficiently advised in the premises,

It Is This Day Ordered that said Stipulation shall be, and the same hereby is, Approved, and this case is Remanded to the Colorado Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 223 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 223

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 12, 2001

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Permitting the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a prayer vigil in 
  memory of those who lost their lives in the events of September 11, 
                                 2001.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used at any time on 
September 12, 2001, for a prayer vigil in memory of those who lost 
their lives in the events of September 11, 2001. Physical preparations 
for

the vigil shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as 
the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 12 
      (legislative day, September 11), 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Calvin J. BIRKS v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 57398.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 4, 1987.

Fred L. Cooper, Columbia, for appellant.

Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by Wayne Snuggs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Michael R. Eubanks, Judge.

Before WALKER, C.J., and PRATHER and SULLIVAN, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification**

I, Michael Gooch, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GFI Group Inc.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)     evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)     disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

| Date: November 14, 2005 |   |                       |
|------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
|                         |   | /s/ MICHAEL GOOCH          |
|                         |   | Michael Gooch              |
|                         |   | *Chairman  of the Board,*  |
|                         |   | *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
Richard Stogsdill, Petitioner,

v. South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2014-002513

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law Judge

Opinion No. 27601 Heard November 17, 2015 – Filed January 20, 2016

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED
Patricia Logan Harrison, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Richard G. Hepfer, of Columbia, for Respondent.
Anna Maria Darwin and Sara h Garland St. Onge, both of Columbia, for Amicus Curi ae Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities, In c.; Andrew J. Atkins, of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae South Carolina Chapter ofthe National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys; and Stephen Suggs, of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae South Carolina Appleseed Le gal Justice Center.

PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in Stogsdill v. South Carolina Departmen t of Health and Human Services , 410 S.C. 273, 763 S.E.2d 638 (C t. App. 2014). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. PLEICONES, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE , HEARN, JJ., and Acting Justice James E. Moore, concur.
**Exhibit 15**

 

November 9,2010

 

GFIGroup Inc.

55Water Street

NewYork, NY 10041

 

We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financialinformation of GFI Group Inc. and subsidiariesfor the periods ended September 30, 2010, and 2009, as indicated in ourreport dated November 9,2010; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on thatinformation.

 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in yourQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2010, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-167678,No. 333-122905, No. 333-152027 and No. 333-160344 on Form S-8.

 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) underthe Securities Act of 1933 is not considered a part of the RegistrationStatement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared orcertified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

 

 

New York, New York

 

----
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Management System; Iden tification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Removal of Saccharin and It s Salts from the Lists of Hazardous Constituents, Hazardous Wastes, and Hazardous Substances; Changes Resulting from OMB Review of the Proposed rule

FROM: Narendra Chaudhari Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0310

The attached document is a copy of the proposed rule (Attachment 1 enti tled “Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Rem oval of Saccharin and

Its Salts from the Lists of Hazardous C onstituents, Hazardous Wastes, and Hazardous Substances;”). It has been highlighted to show the changes EPA made to the document following a review by the Office of Manage ment and Budget (OMB) during December 2009 through March 2010. This copy resulted from a comp arison of the final vers ion with the version provided to OMB for review. No te that this document also includes minor editorial changes made by EPA over this time period that did not arise from OMB comments.
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

          -                     [Docket No. EL01-10-000,                     et al                    .]                 

Commission staff member Aaron Siskind, of the Office of Energy Market Regulation, was previously assigned to settlement and litigation proceedings in the above-referenced dockets when he worked for the Office of Administrative Litigation.

As non-decisional staff, Mr. Siskind will not participate in an advisory capacity in the Commission's review of any future filings in the above-referenced dockets, including offers of settlement or settlement agreements.

Mr. Siskind will not be assigned as advisory staff to review and process subsequent filings that are made in the above-referenced dockets, including any offer of settlement or settlement agreement. Non-decisional staff and advisory staff are prohibited from subsequent communications with one another concerning matters in the above-referenced dockets.

Dated: March 28, 2012.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-8021 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
To : Monica Morales/R8/USEPA/US@EPA, Cc: Bcc: Subject: Record of external meeting regarding EPA's action on the Regional Haze SIP for North Dakota Monica, This is to inform you for docketing purposes that on February 29, 2012, Janet McCabe and I met with representatives of the N orthern Plains Potato Growers Association regarding their views of EPA's proposed action on the Regional Haze SIP for North Dakota. The Association was represented by Brian Vculek, Justin Dagen, John Halverson, and Chuck Gunnerson. The Association representatives expressed concern about the potential impact on electricity p rices and how that could affect their cost of operations. Janet McCabe explained the schedule for the final action, that this schedule was being forced by a consent decree, the legal basis of the Regional Haze program, the connection between good visibility in Class I areas and tourism, and that while there are the health benefits that result from any reduction in air pollution from power plants and other sources including the controls adopted for visibility purposes such health benefits are not a factor in EPA's action on the Regional Haze SIP.

02.29.12 - National Potato Council.pd f

. Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, EPA 919-541-5463
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 Quarterly Report of Ameriprint International Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Kevin Moe, Chief Executive 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:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 14th day of March, 2005.



| | /s/ Kevin Moe                                      
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Kevin Moe                                          
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer













---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60299 Conference Calendar

GARY LEE MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus EDWARD HARGETT; HOWARD O. DAVIS, JR., Circuit Court Judge, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:93-CV-203-S-D

- - - - - - - - - - December 11, 1996 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mississippi state prisoner Garry Lee Moore, #65396/46504, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, arguing that his constitutional rights were violated when he was denied funds to pay for the cost of his state-court civil appeal. As Moore has failed to allege a valid basis for maintaining a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the defendants, see Nickens v. Melton , 38 F.3d 183, 185 (5thNo. 96-60299 - 2 - Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1376 (1995), the district court properly granted summary judgment in their favor. Moore’s appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution appellant that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, appellant is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 24
- 00413
- CR

Frederick Rubio , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. 2022 CR052 , THE HONORABLE GARY L. STEEL , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Frederick Rubio appeals the denial of a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus seeking a bond reduction. We will dismiss the appeal as moot.

BACKGROUND Rubio was charged with the offense of bail jumping and failure to appear. See Tex. Penal Code § 38.10 . The trial court set bond at $35,000. Rubio filed a pretrial motion seeking a bond reduction. A hearing on the motion was held on June 18, 2024 , and the trial court reduced the bond to $5,000 . That same day, Rubio filed a pro s e notice of appeal seeking to challenge
the trial court’s order ruling on his motion. Approximately ten days later, Rubio filed a pro se appellant’s brief asserting that the tri al court should have ordered that he be released on a personal bond. Almost two months later, a clerk’s record was filed in this case, and the clerk’s record
confirms that on July 29, 2024, Rubio was convicted of the charged offense and sentenced to thirty

-2

five years’ imprisonment. See id. § 12.42 (providing sentencing range for felony offense where defendant had previously been convicted of two other felony offenses).

DISCUSSION A defendant may file a pretrial writ of habeas corpus seeking bail reduction or release on personal recognizance bond. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 11.24, 17.151

. However, “where the premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by subsequent developments, the legal issues raised thereunder are rendered moot.” Bennet v. State , 818 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.) (internal quotations omitted). An appeal from the denial of a pretrial writ of habeas corpus seeking bail r eduction is rendered moot if the defendant
is tried and convicted. Ex parte Tucker , 3 S.W.3d 576, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (en banc) (per curiam); Martinez v. State , 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)

.

Since Rubio filed his application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus seeking bail reduction, the trial court has rendered a judgment of conviction for bail jumping and failure to
appear and sentenc ed him to thirty

- five years in prison. Because Rubio has been convicted of
the underlying offense and is no longer subject to pretrial confinement, his appeal from the denial
of his pretrial habeas application is moot. See Ex parte Tucker , 3 S.W.3d at 576 ; Martinez , 826 S.W.2d at 620

.
CONCLUSION

Rubio’s appeal from the denial of his application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus seeking a bond reduction is dismissed as moot.3 __________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice
Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Theofanis
Dismissed as Moot
Filed: September 20, 2024
Do Not Publish