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

FOURTH DISTRICT

MEAGEN LEEANN WILSEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-947

[June 7, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Lawrence M. Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562020CF001285AXXXXX.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Christine C. Geraghty, 

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals her conviction and sentence based upon the trial 

court’s determination that she had violated probation. We affirm the 

conviction without further discussion, concluding the issues which 

appellant raises are without merit.

As to the sentence, appellant sought a downward departure in her 

sentence based upon her claims of mental health issues. She contends 

that the court’s comments at sentencing evinced an impermissible policy 

against granting downward departures based upon mental illness. Our 

review of the record shows that the court did not announce any such 

policy, and that the court’s comments were directed to the specific facts of 

appellant’s case. Thus, we affirm her sentence.

We reverse, however, the imposition of costs in the sentence. The court 

imposed a $200 cost of prosecution without evidence from the State to 

support the cost, nor an opportunity for appellant to object to the 

enhanced cost. The State concedes that the cost of prosecution should 
2

have been $100 pursuant to section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2021), 

because the State did not request a higher fee or provide proof of incurring

higher costs. Bevans v. State, 291 So. 3d 591, 593–94 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2020). Accordingly, the trial court erred in imposing the $200 in cost of 

prosecution. On remand, the trial court should reduce the cost to the 

statutory minimum of $100 or reimpose the additional costs if sufficient 

findings are made. Bartolone v. State, 327 So. 3d 331, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2021).

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2950 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2950

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to delay the application of 
 the individual health insurance mandate for individuals who have not 
                            attained age 27.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2013

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to delay the application of 
 the individual health insurance mandate for individuals who have not 
                            attained age 27.

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

SECTION 1. DELAY OF APPLICATION OF INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE 
              FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NOT ATTAINED AGE 27.

    (a) In General.--Section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(h) Delayed Application to Individuals Who Have Not Attained Age 
27.--In the case of any month beginning before January 1, 2015, no 
penalty shall be imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any 
individual who has not attained age 27 as of December 31, 2013.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in section 1501 of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The State, ex rel. Crotty, a Taxpayer, Appellant, *v.*Zangerle, County Auditor, et al., Appellees.

(No. 27902

Decided January 10, 1940.)

*Mr..John J. Tetlow, Mr. John J. Sheehan, Mr. John J. Kennedy, Mr. Wesley L. Grills, Mr. Bay T. Miller*and *Mr. Don C. Miller,*for relator.

*Mr. Franlc T. Cullitan,*prosecuting attorney, and

*Mr. Saul S. Danaceau,*for respondents.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Williams, Myers and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Day and Hart, JJ., not participating.
exv4w3



 






Exhibit 4.3




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Experts” in the Registration Statement
(Form F-8) (File No. 333-129218), as amended on
December 15, 2005, January 20, 2006 and February 28,
2006 (the “Amended Registration
Statement”), pertaining
to Inco Limited’s offer dated October 24, 2005 to purchase all of the issued and outstanding common
shares of Falconbridge Limited (formerly Noranda Inc.) (the
“Company”) and the incorporation by reference in the Amended Registration
Statement of our auditors’ report dated February 3, 2005 relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the consolidated
statements of income (loss) and retained earnings (deficit) and cash flows for the years then
ended.




	 	 	 
	 

Toronto, Canada,

	 	/s/   Ernst & Young LLP
	February 28, 2006

	 	Chartered Accountants
Order filed November 10, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00868-CV

____________

ESTATE OF DAISY MAE DAVIS, DECEASED, Appellant

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 414,794-401

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed October 8, 2015. To date, the 

filing fee of $205.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellants are excused by 

statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 5. Therefore, the court issues the following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 to the 

clerk of this court on or before November 25, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If 

appellant fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal 

will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 205 (Monday, October 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27095]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-220-005]


Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of 
Negotiated Rate Agreement

October 17, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 11, 2000, Great Lakes Gas Transmission 
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) filed for disclosure, a 
transportation service agreement pursuant to Great Lakes' Rate Schedule 
FT entered into by Great Lakes and Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited 
Partnership (MCV) (FT Service Agreement). The FT Service Agreement 
being filed reflects a negotiated rate arrangement between Great Lakes 
and MCV commencing November 1, 2000.
    Great Lakes states that the FT Service Agreement is being filed to 
implement a negotiated rate contract as required by both Great Lakes' 
negotiated rate tariff provisions and the Commission's Statement of 
Policy on Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for 
Natural Gas Pipelines and Regulation of Negotiated Transportation 
Services of Natural Gas Pipelines, issued January 31, 1996, at Docket 
Nos. RM95-6-000 and RM96-7-000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27095 Filed 10-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### BLAIR v. STATE.

No. 26891.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 17, 1954.

*836No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State. -

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 10 days in jail and a fine of $50.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
|                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                          
|                                                                                                       
|Wyoming Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs, Wet (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                       
|Wyoming Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs, Wet (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 24     | 94     | 35     | 60    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 98     | 43     | 31     | 20     | 23     | 64     | 28     | 67     | 57     | 27    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 35     | 48     | 216    | 280    | 412    | 138    | 179    | 330    | 298    | 219   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 183    | 523    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40538

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO GONZALEZ-GARCIA, also known as Roberto Perez Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:17-CR-11-1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pedro GonzalezGarcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez-Garcia has not filed a response. We 

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40538 Document: 00514280146 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
No. 17-40538

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-40538 Document: 00514280146 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
MEMORANDUM

DATE: December 10 , 2012

TO: Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2008

- 0334

FROM: Penny Lassiter , EPA

SUBJECT: Documentation of U.S. EPA Discussion with Am eri can Chemistry Council

(ACC) R egarding Title V Permit Applicability

The purpose of this memorandum is to document a telephone conversation between Penny
Lassiter of EPA and Leslie Hulse and Lorraine G ershman at ACC. On December 10, 2012, Ms. Lassiter called to follow up with ACC about the email that Ms. Gershman sent to EPA on December 6, 2012 regarding applicability of title V. That email and attachments are attached to
this memorandum.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 294 

To revoke a requirement of Executive Order 13618 with respect to the 

use of privately owned communications resources by the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2013 

Mr. NUGENT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To revoke a requirement of Executive Order 13618 with 

respect to the use of privately owned communications 

resources by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF REQUIREMENT. 

4 Section 5.2(e) of Executive Order 13618, ‘‘Assign5 ment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness 

6 Communications Functions’’ (July 6, 2012; 77 Fed. Reg. 

7 40779) is revoked to the extent that it refers to commu8 nications resources that are privately owned. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 294 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL USE AND CONTROL OF 

2 PRIVATELY OWNED COMMUNICATIONS RE3 SOURCES. 

4 No agency or instrumentality of the Federal Govern5 ment may satisfy priority communications requirements 

6 (as such term is used in section 5.2(e) of Executive Order 

7 13618) through the use of privately owned communica8 tions resources, and no funds appropriated pursuant to 

9 any provision of law may be used to take any action that 

10 expands the authority of the Federal Government to con11 trol privately owned communications resources. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
1 

### Ogulei, David

From: John Cooper <johnc@cooperenvironmental.com>

Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 1:12 PM

To: Ryan, Jeff; Rice, Joann

Cc: JohnC@cooperenvironmental.com; kragp@cooperenvironmental.com;

davidm@cooperenvironmental.com

Subject: metal measurement

Attachments: MM CEMS Update 111114ces.ppt; 640 Spec Sheet Final.pdf

Hi Jeff/Joann,

Attached is a PP presentation that provides information that you may want to share with your Chinese visitors. Feel free

to use and modify as meets your needs. I have also attached a data sheet for the current Xact CEMS. I have added a few

notes at the bottom of some slides.

The name of our Chinese partner (owns about 53% of CES) is Sailhero. I have found them excellent partners, easy to

work with and they continue to infuse substantial capital allowing us to grow more rapidly than we would have been

able to otherwise– we now have a staff of 20 and expect to be pushing 30 by this time next year.

Let me know if I can be of further help.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3126 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to prohibit a 

government subsidy for the purchase of a health plan by a Member 

of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

Mr. FINCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

to prohibit a government subsidy for the purchase of 

a health plan by a Member of Congress. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Healthcare Fairness 

5 Act of 2013’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3126 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO HEALTH CARE SUBSIDIES FOR MEMBERS OF 

2 CONGRESS. 

3 Section 1312(d)(3)(D) of the Patient Protection and 

4 Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18032(d)(3)(D)) is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); 

7 and 

8 (2) by inserting after clause (i) the following 

9 new clause: 

10 ‘‘(ii) NO PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR

11 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.—Notwith12 standing any other provision of law or any 

13 regulation or guidance promulgated by the 

14 Director of the Office of Personnel Man15 agement, no Federal funds shall be ex16 pended to pay any portion of the premium 

17 for a health plan purchased by a Member 

18 of Congress pursuant to clause (i).’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Scovill
Fasteners Inc. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001051860
<NAME> SCOVILL FASTENERS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,821
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,146
<INVENTORY>                                     24,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,454
<PP&E>                                          72,945
<DEPRECIATION>                                     440
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 226,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,639
<BONDS>                                        128,199
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            9,400
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,409
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   226,202
<SALES>                                         95,861
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                95,861
<CGS>                                           68,594
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,412
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,811
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   355
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,911
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,727
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,074
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                653
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       653
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3085 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3085

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 3349 West 111th Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Captain 
            Herbert Johnson Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CAPTAIN HERBERT JOHNSON MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3349 West 111th Street in Chicago, Illinois, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Captain Herbert Johnson Memorial Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Captain 
Herbert Johnson Memorial Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3085

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 3349 West 111th Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Captain 
            Herbert Johnson Memorial Post Office Building''.
```