alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Home » Agencies » ENRD » About the Division » Organization » LAS » Where Our Cases Have Taken Us » Big Cypress National Preserve



### Environment & Natural Resources Division
About the Division What We Do Organization History Our Partners
Meet the AAG Press Room Proposed Consent Decrees Employment Selected Publications ENRD FOIA Contact the Division The Land Acquisition Section secured sites for the creation and subsequent expansions of Big Cypress National Preserve. Covering almost 1,200 square miles, the Preserve was established by Congress in 1974 because it plays a crucial ecological role as the northern watershed for Everglades National Park. Big Cypress National Preserve website Did you know? The preserve is home to nine endangered species, including the West Indian Manatee, the eastern indigo snake, and the Florida Sandhill Crane. BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE



### Last Updated: October 2010

Site Map A to Z Index Archive Accessibility FOIA No FEAR Act Information Quality Privacy Policy Legal Policies & Disclaimers For Employees Office of the Inspector General Government Resources USA.gov ABOUT The Attorney General DOJ Agencies Budget & Performance Strategic Plans

BUSINESS & GRANTS Business Opportunities Grants RESOURCES Forms Publications Case Highlights A-Z Index

BRIEFING ROOM Justice News The Justice Blog Videos Photo Library CAREERS Student Opportunities Internships

CONTACT 

# Page 1 of 1 USDOJ: Environment and Natural Resources Division : Big Cypress National Preserve

12/5/2011 http://www.justice.gov/enrd/4866.htm
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1321 CAF 12-00970 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF AMANDA R. DIETZMAN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JASON E. DIETZMAN, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

FARES A. RUMI, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

CHARLES J. GREENBERG, AMHERST, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

LINDA M. JONES, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, BATAVIA.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, J.), entered April 26, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order, among other things, directed respondent to stay away from petitioner.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, respondent, the former husband of petitioner and the father of her two children, appeals from an order of protection directing him, inter alia, to stay away from petitioner. Contrary to respondent’s contention, Family Court’s finding that he committed the family offenses of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]), harassment in the second degree (§ 240.26 [1]), and disorderly conduct (§ 240.20 [1]) is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Matter of Marquardt v Marquardt , 97 AD3d 1112, 1113; see generally Family Ct Act § 812 [1]). The testimony presented at the fact-finding hearing established that respondent kicked petitioner in the face, resulting in bruises, swelling, and a cut lip requiring stitches, and that while on top of petitioner he put his hands around her neck to prevent her from breathing. The court’s determination that respondent was not acting in self-defense is supported by the record and will not be disturbed ( see Matter of Medranda v Mondelli , 74 AD3d 972, 972). We reject respondent’s further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel ( see Matter of Amodea D. , ___ AD3d ___ [Dec. 27, 2013]).

Entered: December 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

KEITH WHITAKER, SR.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C.O. VOIERS,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-546

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. 

Bowman

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Docs. 4, 7)

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

State Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the pleadings and, on August 28, 2018 and September 28, 2018, 

submitted two Reports and Recommendations. (Docs. 4, 7). No objections were filed. 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

determine that such Reports and Recommendations should be and are hereby adopted in 

their entirety. 

Accordingly:

1. The Reports and Recommendations (Docs. 4, 7) are ADOPTED; and 

2. The Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) is DISMISSED with prejudice

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), with the 

exception of Plaintiff’s harassment and/or excessive-force claim against 

Defendant Voiers for allegedly pulling the mattress out from underneath 
2

Plaintiff on April 25, 2018, his excessive-force claim against Defendant 

Voiers for allegedly shutting a door on Plaintiff’s back on May 26, 2018, 

and his retaliation claim against Defendant Voiers for allegedly conducting 

a cell search, taking things from Plaintiff’s cell, and threatening Plaintiff on 

June 2, 2018, denying Plaintiff recreation and conducting another cell 

search on June 6, 2018, and conducting a third cell search and taking 

Plaintiff’s extra-blanket on July 6, 2018, because Plaintiff attempted to 

bring legal action against Voiers. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 11/21/18 s/ Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge
G.W.D. v. STATE

CR-16-0085

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert V. Dickinson, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of California Micro Devices Corporation;



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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.  The registrants other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrant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 affect the registrant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
registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: June 14, 2004



|    |  |                                                                     
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/    ROBERT V.
DICKINSON                                          
|    |  | Robert V. Dickinson, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                  5
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1997              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          JUN-30-1997              JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                28,425                   28,425
<SECURITIES>                          27,759                   27,759
<RECEIVABLES>                        112,225                  112,225
<ALLOWANCES>                            5,541                    5,541
<INVENTORY>                                0                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           0                        0
<PP&E>                                     0                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       175,310                  175,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      0                        0
<BONDS>                               66,382                   66,382
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0                        0
<PREFERRED>                                0                        0
<COMMON>                                  56                       56
<OTHER-SE>                            47,547                   47,547
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         175,310                  175,310
<SALES>                                    0                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       7,691                   14,098
<CGS>                                      0                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         300                      735
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     2,648                    5,042
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        3,057                    4,919
<INCOME-TAX>                           1,177                    1,894
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    1,880                    3,025
<DISCONTINUED>                             0                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0                        0
<CHANGES>                                  0                        0
<NET-INCOME>                           1,880                    3,025
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .32                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .32                      .52
        



</TABLE>
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 17

- 00337

- CV

N ATHANIEL W

ASHINGTON

, Appellant

V

.

C ITY OF A RLINGTON P OLICE

D EPARTMENT

, R. W

ALSH

, T AYLOR

F ERGUSON

, B RIAN S ALVANT

, AND

G EORGE M ACKEY

, Appellees §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 3 42nd District Court

of Tarrant County (342

- 279518

- 15)

October 4, 2018

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,590,462
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,482,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,435,942
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,198,178
<PP&E>                                      44,227,666
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,808,610
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,125,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,081,185
<BONDS>                                     10,903,498
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          150,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       178,812
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,706,875
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,125,941
<SALES>                                     44,296,444
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,296,444
<CGS>                                       33,468,376
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               36,650,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            23,687,980
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,399,114
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (17,441,316)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (17,441,316)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (17,611,339)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.14)
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50172 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ENRIQUE SERNA-TORRES Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-2572-ALL
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Enrique Serna-Torres appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the district court erred when it enhanced his sentence pursuant to § 1326(b)(1) and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) because the Government failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he had a prior felony conviction. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief on the merits. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 21, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-50172

2 To the extent Serna-Torres argues that his prior felony conviction must have been pleaded in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torresv. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). See United Statesv. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). Tothe extent Serna-Torresargues that the Government failed toestablish
a sufficient evidentiary basis for the sentencing enhancement, he has failed to show plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). The presentence report (PSR) provided that Serna-Torres was removed to Mexicoon July 20, 2004, subsequent to his conviction on September 21, 2001, for the felony offense of illegal reentry. The PSR also provided that the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) enhancement was based on this prior felony conviction. At sentencing, SernaTorres agreed with the guideline calculation set forth in the PSR, and the district court adopted the PSR without change. Therefore, the Government proved by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Serna-Torres’s prior removal was subsequent to his felony conviction for illegal reentry, and the district court did not err when it enhanced his sentence pursuant to § 1326(b)(1) and § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D). See United States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the Government’s motion for an extension of time is DENIED.
Pamela GIVANS-DENSON, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Appellee.

No. 4D17-101

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Thomas E. STRINKO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Sontha Sue STRINKO, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1774

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 06, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Exchange Act
                           and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

     (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------


I, Doron Kempler, General Manager of Carmel Container Systems, Ltd. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:

(1)  the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal
     year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), filed with the U.S. Securities
     and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated:  June 27, 2004

                                                 /s/ Doron Kempler
                                                --------------------------------
                                                 Doron Kempler
                                                 General Manager
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                              16
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,872
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,335
<INVENTORY>                                     65,177
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               104,342
<PP&E>                                          49,799
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           86,152
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,898
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,458
<SALES>                                        353,226
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               353,226
<CGS>                                          253,591
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    75
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  90
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,486
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,570
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,916
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,916
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0000883573
<NAME>                           F-1000 Futures Fund L.P., Series VIII
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                       4,449,477
<SECURITIES>                                                11,776,476
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  387,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            16,613,888
<PP&E>                                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              16,613,888
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          697,201
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  15,916,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                16,613,888
<SALES>                                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               646,489
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               137,301
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                509,188
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   509,188
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    38.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Benjamin FREDERICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3945

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.