alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STANLEY L. BROWN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 373

[ May 2 , 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Bernard I. Bober

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 07

- 18605CF10A, 07

- 20600CF10A and 08

- 0 2323CF10A

.

Stanley L. Brown, Daytona Beach, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., K LINGENSMITH and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 215 (Monday, November 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66550-66551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28311]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4572-D-14]


Order of Succession

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, HUD.

[[Page 66551]]


ACTION: Notice of Order of Succession.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, the Deputy Secretary for the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development designates the Order of Succession for 
the Office of Public Affairs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Virginia Kelly Ackermen, Senior 
Attorney, Procurement and Administrative Law, Office of General 
Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 10180, 451 
7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410, (202) 708-0622. (This is not a 
toll-free number.) This number may be accessed via TTY by calling the 
Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (toll-free).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Deputy Secretary for the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development is issuing this Order of Succession of 
officials authorized to perform the functions and duties of the Office 
of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs when, by reason of 
absence, disability, or vacancy in office, the Assistant Secretary is 
not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the 
office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the 
Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d.
    Accordingly, the Deputy Secretary designates the following Order of 
Succession:

Section A. Order of Succession

    Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 
1998, during any period when, by reason of absence, disability, or 
vacancy in office, the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs is not 
available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the Office of 
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, the following officials within 
the Office of Public Affairs are hereby designated to exercise the 
powers and perform the duties of the Office:
    (1) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs
    (2) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Planning
    (3) Director, Press Operations
    (4) Senior Public Affairs Specialist, Managing Editor
    These officials shall perform the functions and duties of the 
Office in the order specified herein, and no official shall serve 
unless all the other officials, whose position titles precede his/hers 
in this order, are unable to act by reason of absence, disability, or 
vacancy in office.

    Authority: Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban 
Development Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3535(d).

    Dated: October 27, 2000.
Saul N. Ramirez, Jr.,
Deputy Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development.
[FR Doc. 00-28311 Filed 11-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-01-M
H. Con. Res. 146 Agreed to October 19, 1993

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concur- ring),

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL BUILDING AND GROUNDS.

The Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Capitol (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Commission’’)

may use the Capitol building and grounds on October 23, 1993,

or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives

and the President pro tempore of the Senate may jointly designate,

for events to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the laying

of the cornerstone of the Capitol.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

The events referred to in section 1 shall be free of admission

charge to the public and arranged under conditions to be prescribed

by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board.

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

(a) STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.—Subject to the approval of

the Architect of the Capitol, the Commission is authorized to erect

upon the Capitol grounds such stages, sound amplification devices,

and other related structures and equipment as may be required

for the events referred to in section 1.

(b) ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.—The Architect of the Capitol

and the Capitol Police Board are authorized to make any such

additional arrangements, including the use of voluntary and

uncompensated staff and services, as may be required to carry

out the events referred to in section 1.
H. Con. Res. 146—2

(c) REPRESENTATIONS.—The Architect of the Capitol shall take

such actions as may be necessary to ensure that sponsors of the

events referred to in section 1 do not make representations that

such sponsorship in any way constitutes an endorsement by the

Federal Government.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7482

WILLIE MORRIS MCBRIDE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM BRASWELL, Officer; TIMOTHY S. EVANS,

Investigator; R. L. CHUPIK, Investigator;

JONES, J-106; S. I. SQUYRES, Investigator;

DAVID K. MAPP, JR.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-652-3)

Submitted: March 3, 1998 Decided: March 20, 1998

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Morris McBride, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. McBride v. Braswell, No. CA-96-652-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 2,

1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3275 

To amend the Pay Our Military Act to ensure that the allowances of members 

of the Armed Forces covered by such Act include military tuition assistance programs of the Department of Defense. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 8, 2013 

Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. 

WILSON of South Carolina, Mrs. ROBY, Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, 

and Mrs. ELLMERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To amend the Pay Our Military Act to ensure that the 

allowances of members of the Armed Forces covered 

by such Act include military tuition assistance programs 

of the Department of Defense. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY 

4 TUITION ASSISTANCE. 

5 Section 2(a)(1) of the Pay Our Military Act (H.R. 

6 3210 of the 113th Congress) is amended by inserting after 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3275 IH

1 ‘‘pay and allowances’’ the following: ‘‘(including military 

2 tuition assistance)’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### KIEL v. STATE.

No. 23503.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 4, 1946.

No appearance for appellant.

A. C. Winborn, Cr. Dist. Atty., and E. T. Branch, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., both of Houston, and Ernest. S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was convicted for unlawfully carrying a pistol and given a sentence of one year in jail.

The record is before this court without a statement of facts or bill of exceptions. The proceedings appear regular in every respect. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Trustees 

LaSalle Hotel Properties: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe registration statement on Forms S-3 (No. 333-156451, 333-51476, 333-44872, 333-76373) and on Forms S-8 (No. 333-125058, 333-104056, 333-86911, 333-72265) of LaSalle Hotel Properties of our reports dated February 19, 2009, with respect tothe consolidated balance sheets of LaSalle Hotel Properties as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period endedDecember 31, 2008, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008 which reports appear in the December 31, 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K ofLaSalle Hotel Properties. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Chicago, Illinois

February 19, 2009
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6369** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ROBERT HENRY STEWART, JR., a/k/a Robert Stewart, a/k/a Robert Abney, a/k/a Champ Stewart , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Aiken
. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. ( 1:96

- cr - 00001

- CMC

- 1; 1:14

- cv - 00500

- CMC )

Submitted : October 21, 2014 Decided: October 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Robert Henry Stewart, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Norman Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Henry Stewart, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473 , 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatab le claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the app eal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Stanadyne Holdings, Inc. (Holdings) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), we, M. David Jones, President of Holdings, and Stephen S. Langin, Chief Financial Officer of Holdings, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

(1) The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                   |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|/s/ M. David Jones |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen S. Langin  
|M. David Jones     |  |  |  |  |  | Stephen S. Langin      
|President          |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
|June 21, 2010      |  |  |  |  |  | June 21, 2010
#### McTEE v. STATE.

No. 21720.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1941.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1942.

J. W. McCullough, of McKinney, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated; the penalty assessed is confinement in the county jail for three months and a fine of $270.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged and waived a jury upon the trial. The indictment and all matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The motion for rehearing in this cause presents nothing for our consideration and is overruled.
----

|   | ***  Confidential material which has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| PDI, INC.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | PFIZER INC.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
| By: /s/ Nancy S. Lurker                                              | By: /s/ Chris Gish                                           |
| Name: Nancy S. Lurker                                           | Name: Chris Gish                                             |
| Title: Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                            | Title: Senior Director, Sales                                                                                                                |

----

----
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-37,981]

      ( print page 66260)    
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Adirondack Knitting Mills, Amsterdam, New York. The application contained no new substantial information which would bear importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.

TA-W-37,981; Adirondack Knitting Mills Amsterdam, New York (October 25, 2000).

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 26th day of October, 2000.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-28243 Filed 11-2-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### CAVAZOS v. STATE.

No. 25777.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 30, 1952.

Rehearing Denied May 28, 1952.

Gerald Weatherly, Austin, Goodhue Weatherly, Falfurrias, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder; the punishment, two years.

The prosecuting witness Marek testified that, while at a beer drinking establishment, he met the appellant, and they began to gamble on a pin ball machine; that they had a misunderstanding about who had won; that he told appellant that he owed him fifty cents; that appellant “said something and walked out. When he walked out I drank my beer and walked out behind him.” Marek further stated that, when he got outside, he saw appellant taking a gun from his car; whereupon he began to run, and appellant shot at him twice; that he came to a stop, turned around and observed that appellant had fallen and that it was at this juncture that appellant shot him in the chest.

The deputy sheriff, who happened to be passing the tavern at the time of the trouble, testified that he first observed appellant and Barrera arguing at appellant’s pickup truck parked at the curb; that appellant pulled out a gun, and Marek •began to dodge; that appellant fired at Marek, who began to run; that appellant fired again; that, some distance around the corner, the appellant fell; that Marek stopped and was leaning over him when the bullet which took effect was fired by appellant.

The doctor testified that the bullet had gone through Marek’s chest near his heart and that he would have died had he not received prompt medical attention.

Barrera testified for the appellant, but, in his cross-examination, he admitted that a statement he had made following the offense was correct. In this statement, he told that he had tried to keep the appellant from getting his pistol out of the pickup; that appellant had shot at the injured party and then followed him around the corner and out of his view, where the other shots occurred.

*744Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted that Marek had no' weapon of any kind in his hand and never touched him, but contended that Marek was advancing on him and'that he shot all three times in an effort to frighten Marek away and without intending to hit him.

The sole question presented for our review is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

We have studied appellant’s able brief in the light of his contention that “the testimony viewed in its strongest light from the standpoint of the State failed to make guilt reasonably certain” but cannot bring ourselves to agree therewith.

Being convinced that the evidence supports the verdict, the judgment is affirmed.
October 6 , 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JAMES C. SMITH , Appellant

NO. 14

- 16

- 00345

- CV V.

RESOURCE ONE CREDIT UNION , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on April 12, 2016. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, James C. Smith.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### FRANKLIN v. STATE.

No. 24704.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 15, 1950.

Justice, Moore & Justice, by Wm. Wayne Justice, Athens, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was charged by complaint and information with fhe offense of transporting whiskey in a dry area “in an automobile on a public highway,” and for the purpose of seeking enhancement of the punishment as provided by Art. 61, P.C., it was alleged that she had been previously convicted of a like offense of transporting intoxicating liquor in a dry area, and prior to that offense, of the offense of possession for the purpose of sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area.

The court, in his charge to the jury, authorized the enhancement of the punishment in the event the jury convicted appellant and found that she had been so previously convicted. Appellant was found guilty by the jury and her punishment was assessed at a fine of $400.

Appellant excepted to the charge submitting the enhancement of punishment, on the ground that there was no evidence to raise the issue.

It was stipulated that Yvonne Franklin and Viola Ducrest was one and the same person, and the State introduced in evidence certified copies of two judgments of conviction as described in the information and complaint against Viola Ducrest.

There was no testimony or stipulation •that appellant was the same Viola Ducrest who was the defendant in such previous convictions.

The certified copies of the judg- ' ments of conviction alone are not sufficient. *815The accused must be identified as the person who was so convicted. See Phariss v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 406, 194 S.W.2d 1007, and cases there cited.

It was therefore error'for the court to instruct the jury to enhance the punishment, there being insufficient proof of the prior convictions alleged. See 12 Tex.Jur. 800, Sec. 407.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.