alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jerry CHIARELLA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2740

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 16, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner Jerry Chiarella's petition for writ of mandamus is treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and that petition is granted. See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000) ("In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus ... the petitioner must have no other adequate remedy available."). Section 903.035(2), Florida Statues (2017), states that "[a]n application for modification of bail on any felony charge must be heard by a court in person, at a hearing with the defendant present, and with at least 3 hours' notice to the state attorney." (Emphasis added.) The court's denial of Mr. Chiarella's motion following the inadequate June 22, 2017, hearing renders Mr. Chiarella's detention unlawful, as he was not given an adequate opportunity to contest the reasonableness of his bail. We therefore grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and order that the trial court hold a new hearing on Mr. Chiarella's motion to reduce bail, with Mr. Chiarella present, within five days of the date of this order.

NORTHCUTT, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2015-1985

 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM214AD

8-24-84, REV C --- 7/7/09

8-24-84, REV B --- 10/15/08

8-24-84, REV A --- 8/23/08

8-24-84 --- 8/22/08

8-24-89, REV B --- 4/9/14

8-24-89, REV A --- 8/8/12

8-24-89 --- 11/12/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
IA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 99 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to parental rights. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 18, 2022 

Mrs. LESKO submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relating to parental rights. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HJ 99 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The liberty of parents to direct the up3 bringing, education, and care of their children is a funda4 mental right. 

5 ‘‘SECTION 2. The parental right to direct education 

6 includes the right to choose, as an alternative to public 

7 education, private, religious, or home schools, and the 

8 right to make reasonable choices within public schools for 

9 one’s child. 

10 ‘‘SECTION 3. Neither the United States nor any State 

11 shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its 

12 governmental interest as applied to the person is of the 

13 highest order and not otherwise served. 

14 ‘‘SECTION 4. The parental rights guaranteed by this 

15 article shall not be denied or abridged on account of dis16 ability. 

17 ‘‘SECTION 5. This article shall not be construed to 

18 apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul MILLS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-10931.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

DECIDED: May 26, 2004.

Linda Marie Dedman, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas Warren Lively, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*507Before GARWOOD, DEMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Mills appeals his sentence following a remand to the district court for resentencing. *See United States v. Simpson,*334 F.3d 453 (5th Cir.2003). Mills was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and was sentenced to 360 months’ confinement and sixty months’ supervised release. We affirmed his conviction but remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court erred by applying the six level sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(5)(C). *Simpson.*We indicated, however, that a three level enhancement under section 2Dl.l(b)(5)(B) would be proper. *Id.*at 459. Following remand, Mills was sentenced to 290 months’ confinement and sixty months’ supervised release. He now challenges the district court’s imposition on remand of the three-level enhancement for creating a substantial risk of harm to human life (other than a minor or incompetent) or the environment during the manufacture of methamphetamine. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(5)(B).

This court reviews the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines *de novo*and its findings of fact for clear error. *United States v. Huerta,*182 F.3d 361, 364 (5th Cir.1999). “As long as a factual finding is plausible in light of the record as a whole, it is not clearly erroneous.” *Id.*

As this case involves a conspiracy, relevant conduct for application of the sentencing guidelines includes “all reasonably foreseeable acts ... of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(l)(B).

Mills provided large quantities of anhydrous ammonia to other members of the methamphetamine manufacturing conspiracy. Mills repeatedly delivered the tanks of ammonia to a residential neighborhood, and his co-conspirators usually manufactured methamphetamine in or near homes in residential neighborhoods. Although Mills had been required to obtain special training and certification to purchase tanks of anhydrous ammonia from legitimate suppliers, he provided these tanks to his untrained co-conspirators. We also note testimony in the record that on certain occasions the methamphetamine manufacturing process actually caused a fire, the release of a large quantity of ammonia into the atmosphere, and even an explosion. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that a substantial risk of harm to human life or the environment was reasonably foreseeable to Mills. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(5)(B), comment. (n.20(A)). *See also Simpson*at 459.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1021 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1021

 To prohibit contributions to the United Nations Human Rights Council, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2021

Mr. Roy (for himself, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Babin, Mr. Weber of 
   Texas, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Moore of 
 Alabama, Mr. Steube, Mr. Biggs, Mrs. Greene of Georgia, Mr. Jackson, 
   Mr. Williams of Texas, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Perry, Mr. McClintock, Mr. 
Bishop of North Carolina, and Mr. Budd) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit contributions to the United Nations Human Rights Council, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No taxpayer funding for United 
Nations Human Rights Council Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary of State--
            (1) shall withhold from a United States contribution each 
        fiscal year to a regular budget of the United Nations an amount 
        that is equal to the percentage of such contribution that the 
        Secretary determines would be allocated by the United Nations 
        to support the United Nations Human Rights Council; and
            (2) may not make any voluntary contributions to the United 
        Nations Human Rights Council.
    (b) Rescission.--On the date the Secretary of State withholds funds 
pursuant to this section, such funds are rescinded and shall not be 
considered arrears to be repaid to any United Nations Entity.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# ACTION:

60-Day notice and request for comments.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         concerning each proposed collection of information before submission to OMB, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice complies with that requirement.                    

# DATES:

Submit comments on or before March 29, 2022.

# ADDRESSES:

Send all comments to Michael Donadieu, Senior Examiner, Office of SBIC Examinations, OII, Small Business Administration Washington, DC 20416.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Michael Donadieu, Senior Examiner, Office of SBIC Examinations, OII, 202-205-7281,                         *michael.donadieu@sba.gov,*                         or Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-205-7030,                         *curtis.rich@sba.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Form 857 is used by SBA examiners to obtain information about financing provided by small business investment companies (SBICs). This information, which is collected directly from the financed small business, provides independent confirmation of information reported to SBA by SBICs, as well as additional information not reported by SBICs. 

## OMB Control Number 3245-0109

*Title:*                     “Request for Information Concerning Portfolio Financing”.                

*Description of Respondents:*                     Small Business Investment Companies.                

*Form Number:*                     857.                

*Annual Responses:*                     2,250.                

*Annual Burden*: 2,250.                

Curtis Rich,

Management Analyst.

[FR Doc. 2022-01723 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
John MELLQUIST, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1004

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed without prejudice.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6261** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee,

v. ROBERT POPE, Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:10

- cr - 00183

- JFA

- 1 ; 3:13

- cv - 01370

- JFA )

Submitted : June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Robert Pope, Appellant Pro Se. Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Pope seeks to appeal the di strict court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment . The order s are 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 sati sfies 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 debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U .S. at 484

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

DISMISSED
Second Amendment to Rights Agreement



 IMMUCELL CORPORATION 
 EXHIBIT 4.1A 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT DATED AS OF JUNE 30, 2008 
 THIS AMENDMENT is entered into as of June 30, 2008, between IMMUCELL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and American
Stock Transfer & Trust Co., a New York corporation, as Rights Agent (the “Rights Agent”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the
Rights Agent are parties to (i) a Rights Agreement dated as of September 5, 1995 (the “Rights Agreement”), providing for the issuance of certain common stock purchase rights (the “Rights”) to holders of the
Company’s outstanding Common Stock and (ii) an Amendment to Rights Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2005; 
 WHEREAS, under
Section 7(a) of the Rights Agreement, as so amended, the Rights terminate on or before the Final Expiration Date, defined in Section 1(a) of the Rights Agreement to be September 19, 2008; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company’s Board of Directors has determined that extending the Final Expiration Date for the Rights and increasing the ownership
threshold for determining “Acquiring Person” status are in the best interests of the Company; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual benefits arising herefrom, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. FINAL EXPIRATION DATE. Section 1(i) of the Rights
Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
 (i) “Final Expiration Date” shall mean the Close
of Business on September 19, 2011. 
 2. ACQUIRING PERSON THRESHOLD. Sections 1(a) and 27(d) of the Rights Agreement are hereby amended
such that the referenced ownership threshold for determining “Acquiring Person” status is increased from 15% to 18%. 
 3. OTHER
PROVISIONS. The “Summary of Rights to Purchase Common Stock” (attached to the Rights Agreement as Exhibit B thereto) shall likewise be deemed amended to reflect the changes under Sections 1 and 2 above. In all other respects, the terms and
provisions of the Rights Agreement are hereby confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect, subject to the changes stated herein. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and attested, all as of the date first above written. 
  

									
	Attest:	 		 	IMMUCELL CORPORATION
					
	By:	 	/s/ Joseph H. Crabb	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Michael F. Brigham
		 	Joseph H. Crabb	 		 		 	Michael F. Brigham
		 	Vice President	 		 		 	President and Chief Executive Officer
			
	Attest:	 		 	AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY
					
	By:	 	/s/ Susan Silber	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Herbert J. Lemmer
		 	Susan Silber	 		 		 	Herbert J. Lemmer
		 	Assistant Secretary	 		 		 	Vice President
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00066**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 00066\00066_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 00066\00066_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00066\00066_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00066\00066_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00066\00066_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00066\00066_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00066\00066_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00066\00066_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00066\00066_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_AP1-2 Flow diag.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_AP3 Flow diag.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_AP4 Flow diag.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_AP5 Flow diag.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Infilco proposal 8-9-07.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Map 1_Alb station aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Map 2_Alb disposal sites aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Map 3_Alb station topo.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Map 4_Alb disposal site properties.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Map 5_Alb Leachate sample pts.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Map 6_Alb wetlands.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Map 7_Alb outfalls.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Part F Section 5 F5-6 Landfill-1 GW Drawing.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Part F Section 5 F5-6 Ret-Landfill-1 GW Drawing.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_WB-1_Alb NPDES flow diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_wwt-1 flow diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_wwt-2 flow diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00066\00066_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 00066\00066_ Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 00066\00066_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in theSteam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 5, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                OCT-5-1997
<CASH>                                       4,726,457
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,549,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                    77,500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,643,046
<PP&E>                                     302,277,766
<DEPRECIATION>                              41,464,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             301,643,391
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,505,714
<BONDS>                                    181,879,981
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  98,906,775
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               301,643,391
<SALES>                                     57,208,777
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            59,888,331
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               41,875,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,584,999
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,175,378
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,215,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,960,378
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,960,378
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

RICARDO VERNAIR DODSON, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GARY C. MOHR, et al., 

Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Case No. 2:18-cv-908 

District Judge Sarah D. Morrison 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

NOTICE TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

You are hereby notified that Defendants Tracy Thalheimer, Alicia Handwerk, Ron 

Nelson, Jr., Tracy Reveal, and Kathleen Kovack filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 

on September 11, 2020. (Doc. #83). You should receive a copy of the Motion directly 

from Defendants. 

 Your response must be filed with the Court not later than October 5, 2020. If you 

fail to file a response timely, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment may be granted 

and your case dismissed. 

September 14, 2020 s/Sharon L. Ovington 

 Sharon L. Ovington 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:18-cv-00908-SDM-SLO Doc #: 84 Filed: 09/14/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 895