alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 1 7

- 2030

_____________________________
L OCAL U NION 108, I NTERNATIONAL B ROTHERHOOD OF E LECTRICAL W ORKERS , T AMPA , F LORIDA , Appellant,

v.

C ITY OF L EESBURG and P UBLIC E MPLO YEES R ELATIONS C OMMISSION , Appellee s

.

___________________________ On appeal from a Final Order of the Public Employees Relations Commission.

January 10, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , B ILBREY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

____________________________ _ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Tobe Lev and Nick Wolfmeyer of Egan, Lev & Siwica, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Stephanie McCulloch, Leesburg, for App ellee City of Leesburg and Carlos R. Lopez, Staff Attorney, Public Employees Relations Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee Public Employees Relations Commission.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D20-573

_____________________________

LEVERT STEWART,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Marianne L. Aho, Judge.

September 29, 2020

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Levert Stewart, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Adams. Kevin (OST)

._/.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Kevin,

Livsey, Will <WiII.Livsey@aa.com>

Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:34 PM

Adams, Kevin (OST)

Morris, Dale; Karayiannakis, George; Teel, Paige; Vannette, Mark

RE:Carrier Selection Order at 6 Communities and Tentative Selection at Watertown

American Airlines does not object to this order. Please let us know if additional action is required once the Office of

Aviation Analysis rules this decision final.

Kind regards,

AmeriicanAirlines "i..

Will Livsey

Regional Partnerships, Network Planning

817-967-1743 Office 1817-681-5158 Mobile J>

-'"-,~-', .~""

•..."', I."~ .

>~:;"J';:~ ::~::

1~~1~1~;ig

~):;:~Z'~l

From: Kevin.Adams@dot.gov [mailto:Kevin.Adams@dot.gov]

sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 11: 10 AM

To: egiso@watertown-ny.gov; jlawrence@co.jefferson.ny.us; jgraham@watertown-ny.gov; roberth@co.jefferson.ny.us;

saddison@watertown-ny.gov; Noeledc@lighthouse.net; CCEDC@Sault.com; citvclerk@Sault.com;

KAtkins@EmmetCountv.org; Jgi1lett1939@sbcglobal.net; Clerk@cityofHancock.com; dhext@HoughtonCounty.net;

Manager@CityofHancock.com; Scott@cityofHoughton.com; hammersleybo@co.muskegon.mi.us;

jack@sixelconsulting.com; Bryon. Mazade@postman.org; piettema@co.muskegon.mi.us; 9kaler@paducahkv.gov;

Padapt@barkleyregional.com; charity.speich@chippewavalleyairoort.com; CityHall@EauClaireWI.gov

Cc: brad.rawson@skywest.com; Mike.Thompson@skywest.com; Sascha.Vanderbelien@delta.com; Livsey, Will; Morris,

Dale; Thomas, Michael

Subject: carrier Selection Order at 6 Communities and Tentative Selection at Watertown

Hi All,

Attached is a hopefully self-explanatory order. If you have any questions, please give me a call.

Best,

Kevin Adams

202-366-1047

NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient{s). If you are

not an intended recipient, please do not read, distribute, or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have

1
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3239

AN ACT

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide

special immigrant status for certain United States international broadcasting employees.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 3239 ES

1 SECTION 1. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT STATUS FOR CERTAIN

2 UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL BROAD3 CASTING EMPLOYEES.

4 (a) SPECIAL IMMIGRANT CATEGORY.—Section

5 101(a)(27) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8

6 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)) is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph

8 (K);

9 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub10 paragraph (L); and

11 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub12 paragraph:

13 ‘‘(M) subject to the numerical limitations of

14 section 203(b)(4), an immigrant who seeks to enter

15 the United States to work as a broadcaster in the

16 United States for the International Broadcasting

17 Bureau of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, or

18 for a grantee of the Broadcasting Board of Gov19 ernors, and the immigrant’s accompanying spouse

20 and children.’’.

21 (b) NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS.—

22 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 203(b)(4) of the Im23 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(4))

24 is amended by inserting before the period at the end

25 the following: ‘‘, and not more than 100 may be

26 made available in any fiscal year to special immi-
3

S 3239 ES

1 grants, excluding spouses and children, who are de2 scribed in section 101(a)(27)(M)’’.

3 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made

4 by paragraph (1) shall apply to visas made available

5 in any fiscal year beginning on or after October 1,

6 2000.

Passed the Senate October 25 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3239

AN ACT

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to

provide special immigrant status for certainUnited States international broadcasting employees.
EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Chong Kim as President and CEO, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Marvins Place, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by       others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control financial reporting;  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting. Date: January 8, 2008 By: /s/ Chong Kim Chong Kim, President & CEO
#### Mathias Knopp, Appellee, v. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, Appellant.

1 Practice: exceptions Td instructions. Exceptions to instructions, embodied in a motion for new trial, which do not identify or specify the part of the charge or instruction objected to, and do not point out the grounds of objection, are insufficient.

2 Same. A recital in a motion for new trial that exceptions were taken to the instructions at the time they were given is not sufficient proof of that fact, as it is no more than an ex parte statement.

*Appeal from Jefferson District Court.*— Hon. 0. W. VERMILLION, Judge.

Monday, October 26, 1908.

Action to recover damages for the diversion of surface water and for the creation of a, nuisance. Trial to a jury. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.—

*Affirmed.*

*Carroll Wright, J. L. Parrish,*and *Leggett & Mc-Kemey,*for appellant.

*Crail & Grail,*for appellee.

Pee Curiam.

1. Practice: exceptions to instructions. Defendant did not except to the instructions at Ihe time they were given, and in no manner challenged such of those as are now complained of, save in its motion for a new trial, which, among other things, contained this paragraph: “(5) The court erred in his instructions numbers one to-, both inclusive, and in each of them, which were all excepted by the defendant at the time.” Section 3709 of the Code reads as follows: “Either party may take and file ex-*645eeptions to the charge or instructions given, or to the refusal to give instructions asked, within three days after the verdict, which shall be a part of the record, and may include the same in a motion for a new trial, -but in either case the exceptions shall specify the part of the charge or instruction objected to and the ground of the objection.” Manifestly defendant’s exception, embodied in its motion for a new trial, was insufficient under this section. *Rule v. McGregor,*115 Iowa, 323; *Byford v. Girton,*90 Iowa, 661.

2. Same. Moreover, the identification of the instructions excepted to is not sufficiently specific. It is doubtful if any save number one is covered by the exception taken. A recitation in the motion for new trial that . exceptions were taken to the instructions at the time they were given is not sufficient proof of that fact. The motion for a new trial, although a part of the record, is not the place in which to show exceptions taken to the instructions when given. It is nothing more than a statement of one of the parties, and is not a journal entry, nor a finding of the court that exceptions were taken. Indeed, the trial court, in overruling the motion, may very well have concluded that the instructions were not subject to review, because not properly excepted to.

Because of the record before us, appellant presents nothing which we may consider, and the judgment must be, and it is, *affirmed.*
#### Julia Sharp et al., Respondents, v Mike Rob, Doing Business as Fun City Shows, et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[773 NYS2d 706]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Nelson H. Cosgrove, J.), entered January 9, 2003. The order denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the jury verdict and grant a new trial.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens,*155 AD2d 435 [1989]; *see also*CPLR 5501 [a] [1], [2]). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.
#### Polak, Respondent, vs. Polak, Appellant.

*September 12*

October *22, 1946.*

*Thomas E. Torphy*of Milwaukee, for the appellant.

Rosenberry, C. J.

When this case was called .there was no appearance for the plaintiff. The order therefore was reversed under Rule 32.

*By the Court.*— Order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 16, 2018.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D17-2706

Lower Tribunal Nos. 11-30171 & 12-10420

________________

Maximiliano Rey,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge.

Maximiliano Rey, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jonathan Tanoos, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
Maximiliano Rey appeals from an order denying his motion for clarification

of jail credit. We affirm without prejudice for Rey to first exhaust his

administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections and, if unsatisfied

with the outcome, to file a petition for writ of mandamus against the Department.1 

See Watkins v. State, 14 So. 3d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (explaining that a

defendant’s “claim that the [Department of Corrections] incorrectly interpreted his

sentences is not cognizable in a motion for clarification” (citing Edward v. State,

966 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007))); Dunbar v. State, 225 So. 3d 971,

972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“As an inmate in the custody of the [Department of

Corrections], Dunbar must fully exhaust his administrative remedies regarding

gain time or credit owed within the [Department of Corrections] before he is

entitled to pursue judicial remedies.”); LaFerte-Diaz v. Dep't of Corr., 187 So. 3d

908, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“If after exhausting his administrative remedies,

Diaz is not afforded the relief sought, he may file a petition seeking a writ of

mandamus to compel the Department [of Corrections] to credit him with the full

amount of jail time awarded by the trial court.”).

1 To the extent Rey seeks to argue for the first time on appeal that the trial court’s

written sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncements, the proper

mechanism by which to raise such a claim is through a Rule 3.800(a) motion. See

Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2007) (“[A] claim asserting a

discrepancy between an oral and written sentence is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a)

proceeding for correction of an illegal sentence.”).

2
We further affirm without prejudice for Rey to raise a claim asserting a

discrepancy between the oral and written sentence by filing a motion pursuant to

Rule 3.800(a). See Brown v. State, 225 So. 3d 319, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Affirmed.

3
_______________________________________ __ ___________________ ________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

October 19, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh 135095 (33) Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PARNELL SEATON-EL, #159030 Stephen J. Markman, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 135095 CoA: 276335 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Defendant-Appellee.

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $26.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partia l fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $349.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file furth er appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of th is order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.

jm I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 19, 2007
Clerk
----

----

| 1. | This Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /s/ Ofer SandelsonOfer Sandelson         |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Chief Executive 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. 96-40205 Summary Calendar

__________________
JOSEPH ALFRED ROME, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus PHILLIP VICK, Judge, 158th District; TRACY KUNKEL, Denton County District Clerk, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CV-009

- - - - - - - - - - May 1, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joseph Alfred Rome, Jr., argues that the district court erred in dismissing his civil rights complaint as frivolous. Rome also contests the district court's imposition of sanctions. We have reviewed the record, the opinion of the district court, and the brief, and find that the dismissal of theNo. 96-40205 -2- complaint as frivolous is affirmed substantially for the reasons adopted by the district court. See Rome v. Vick , No. 4:96-CV-009 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 29, 1996). Rome's conclusional allegation that the district court's imposition of sanctions was the result of bias does not establish that he was denied an impartial tribunal. Litkey v. United
States , 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157-58 (1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions against Rome. Because Rome has failed to raise an issue of arguable merit, the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. Rule 42.2. We caution Rome that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions by this court. To avoid sanctions, Rome is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously deci ded by this
court. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3178 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 3178

  To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the mandatory 
  separation age for Federal firefighters be made the same as the age 
     that applies with respect to Federal law enforcement officers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 6 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

Mr. Reid for (Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Akaka)) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                   Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the mandatory 
  separation age for Federal firefighters be made the same as the age 
     that applies with respect to Federal law enforcement officers.

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

SECTION 1. MANDATORY SEPARATION AGE FOR FIRE-FIGHTERS.

    (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
            (1) In general.--The second sentence of section 8335(b) of 
        title 5, United States Code, is amended--
                    (A) by inserting ``, firefighter,'' after ``law 
                enforcement officer''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, firefighter,'' after ``that 
                officer''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 8335(b) of title 5, 
        United States Code, is amended by striking the first sentence.
    (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--
            (1) In general.--The second sentence of section 8425(b) of 
        title 5, United States Code, is amended--
                    (A) by inserting ``, firefighter,'' after ``law 
                enforcement officer''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, firefighter,'' after ``that 
                officer''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 8425(b) of title 5, 
        United States Code, is amended by striking the first sentence.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)   1. In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 of  HEPI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Janet L. Crance, Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.     Date: November 13, 2008 /s/ Janet L Crance Janet L Crance Chief Administrative Officer And Principal Financial Officer