alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amber DEJESUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-37

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 25, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

We affirm this appeal in all regards, but remand for entry of a corrected order of revocation of probation. After granting the appellant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion, the lower court entered an amended order of revocation to conform to the court's oral pronouncement. The amended revocation order found the appellant had violated conditions (4) and (9) of her drug offender probation. The amended order also found a violation of condition (5), listing all of the new law violations as the six new law charges in case number 16-2301. This was in error as *533the court only orally found a violation of condition (5) for one of those charges: possession of marijuana. The amended revocation order is affirmed on conditions (4), (9), and (5) for possession of marijuana in case number 16-2301. To the extent the amended written revocation order still did not conform to the oral pronouncement and improperly included violations for the other offenses charged in case number 16-2301, the case is remanded for entry of a corrected order. *See**Leggs v. State* , 27 So.3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED .

Roberts, Rowe, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
#### Brian Aldrich DUPREE, Appellant v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, et al., Appellees

No. 16-5249

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: February 1, 2017

Brian Aldrich Dupree, Pro Se

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

BEFORE: Henderson, Brown, and Pillard, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s August 18, 2016 order be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). See Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The Eleventh Circuit vacated the Georgia district court’s adjusted restitution order in appellant’s criminal case because that court had not specified “the manner in which, and the schedule according to which, the restitution is to be' paid,” as required by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). See United States v. Dupree, 590 Fed.Appx. 857 (11th Cir. 2014), at 7. The district court’s order dismissing appellant’s complaint in this case held only, as a general matter, that insofar as the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program is used to implement a court’s restitution order, it does not constitute excessive delegation of judicial power to the Bureau of Prisons. See 12/4/13 Order in No, 13-cv-1926. Accordingly, as the district court recognized in the order challenged in this appeal, the prior order dismissing appellant’s complaint was not “based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). See 8/18/16 Order in No. 13-cv-1926.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Sterling M. HICKS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3940

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
Kerlin BELLOT, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2239

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit 99.1


C.M. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY


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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the Report) of C.M. Life Insurance Company (the Company), I, Robert J. OConnell, President and Chief Executive
Officer of 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:





(1)  The Report 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.





C.M. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY(Registrant)Date: August 13, 2002



By:

/s/    ROBERT J.
OCONNELL Robert J.
OConnell President and Chief Executive Officer




24
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.333-121940, No. 333-102765, No. 333-102764, and No. 333-85194) of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. of ourreport relating to the financial statements, dated March 15, 2005, except for the restatementdescribed in Note 18 to the consolidated financial statements, as towhich the date is November 9,2005, and our opinions relating to internal control over financial reporting, dated April 29, 2005,except for the matter described in the penultimate paragraph of Management’s Report on InternalControl Over Financial Reporting, as to which the date isNovember 9, 2005, which appear in thisForm 10-K/A, Amendment No. 2. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report datedMarch 15, 2005, except for the restatement described in Note 18 to consolidated financialstatements, as to which the date is November 9, 2005, relating to the financial statement schedule,which appears in this Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2.PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### In the Matter of Juan Rodriguez, Appellant, v Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund, et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 132]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents dated June 28, 2001, denying the petitioner accident disability retirement benefits, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated April 19, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted to the extent that the findings of the Medical Board of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund are annulled, and the matter is remitted to the respondent Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

The issue of whether a firefighter is disabled is determined by the Medical Board of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund (hereinafter the Medical Board). The determination of the Medical Board is conclusive if it is supported by some credible evidence and is not irrational *(see Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund,*90 NY2d 139, 145 [1997]; *Matter of Drew v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*305 AD2d 408, 409 [2003]). Here, the medical findings do not sustain the determi*502nation of the Medical Board. Accordingly, the determination is not rational. The physicians who examined the petitioner did not conclude that the tremors which he had been experiencing were disabling and failed to sufficiently address the petitioner’s contention that the spinal injury which he received in the line of duty was the proximate and natural cause of his disability entitling him to accident disability retirement benefits as a matter of law *(see generally Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. of City of N.Y., Art. II,*60 NY2d 347, 352 [1983]). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and grant the petition to the extent of annulling the findings of the Medical Board and remitting the matter to the respondent Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department (hereinafter the Board of Trustees), Article 1-B Pension Fund for new medical reports and new findings by the Medical Board, and a new determination by the Board of Trustees. Smith, J.P., Crane, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
AAM-13-067-E

December 4, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10666

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-1197

Ms. Laverne Moyer

Substance Prevention/Abuse Program Manager

Moyer Aviation, Inc.

3800 Sullivan Trail

Easton, PA 18040

Dear Ms. Moyer:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 29, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Moyer Aviation, Inc. (Moyer Aviation), for an exemption from

part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, 

would allow Moyer Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to 

cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Moyer Aviation.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.
2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also 

apply to the situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Moyer Aviation, Inc., an exemption from part 120 to the 

extent necessary to allow Moyer Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Moyer Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Moyer Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on November 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
PROTOCOL SYSTEMS, INC.

                       AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

PARTIES:    Protocol Systems, Inc. ("Company")
            8500 SW Creekside Place
            Beaverton, OR 97008

            James P. Fee ("Executive")
            13645 NW Lariat Court
            Portland, OR 97229

DATE: March 1, 2000

                                      RECITALS:

     A.    The Company and the Executive have entered into an Executive
Employment Agreement dated as of July 1, 1998 (the "Employment Agreement").

     B.    The Company and the Executive now desire to modify certain
provisions of the Employment Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

     1.    Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein have their
defined meanings as set forth in the Employment Agreement.

     2.    Section 2.3 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety as follows:

     2.3 TERM. This Agreement shall remain in effect until the earlier of (i)
     termination pursuant to Article 4 or Article 6 of this Agreement or (ii)
     three (3) years from the date of this Agreement, provided however that if
     a Change of Control occurs within three (3) years from the date of this
     Agreement, then this Agreement shall remain in effect for two (2) years
     from the date of the first Change of Control event described in Section
     6.1.1.

     3.    Section 6.2.1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety as follows:

     6.2.1 Change of Control Termination Payment.  In the event of a Change of
     Control Termination as defined in Section 6.1.2, without further action by
     the Board, the Company shall, within thirty (30) days of such termination,
     make a lump sum payment to the Executive, equal to two (2) years' Base
     Salary.

     4.    Section 6.5 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety as follows:

     6.5 Vesting of Stock Options. All unvested stock options held by
     Executive, if any, shall vest immediately upon a Change of Control
     Termination as defined in Section 6.1.2. Executive may exercise such
     options in accordance with the terms and conditions of the stock option
     plan and the agreement pursuant to which such options were granted.

     5.    Except as set forth and amended and restated herein, the Employment
Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to Executive
Employment Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first written
above.

EXECUTIVE                                  PROTOCOL SYSTEMS, INC.


____________________________________       By:_________________________________
James P. Fee                               Title:______________________________
#### Henry JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. BAILEY, Assistant Warden; S. Cain, Lieutenant; J. Lewis, Correctional Officer; Harold Clarke, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6153

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Henry James, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Henry James appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *James v. Bailey,*No. 3:16-cv-00519-JAG-RCY (E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Freddie Buford WALKER v. STATE

CR-16-0037

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Terry PELHAM, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0290

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6713

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA JULIUS COLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00327-D-1)

Submitted: August 31, 2021 Decided: January 11, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Julius Cole, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney,

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Julius Cole appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a 

sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404(b), 

132 Stat. 5194, 5222. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in denying Cole’s motion. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 

492, 497, 502 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
MEMORANDUM

DATE: May 6, 2015

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR

- 2013

- 0602

FROM: Jeremy Schreifels, EPA Office of Air and Radiation

SUBJECT: May 6, 2015, meeting with Georgetown Climate Center researchers regarding linking

state

- level efforts for the Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on May 6, 2015 to discuss the external stakeholders ’ forthcoming research on linki ng state

- level efforts for the p roposed Clean Power Plan . The p roposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014 and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014.

ATTENDEES

External Sta keholders Lissa Lynch, Georgetown Climate Center Gabriel Pacyniak, Georgetown Climate Center Kathryn Zyla , Georgetown Climate Center

EPA
Joe Bryson, EPA HQ Reid Harvey, EPA HQ Jeremy Schreifels, EPA HQ Kenon Smith, EPA HQ Lora Strine, EPA HQ Meg Victor , EPA HQ
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAMON DIAZ-CORTEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71549

Agency No. A079-279-456

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Ramon Diaz-Cortez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

FILED

JUL 25 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71549

questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), and we

deny the petition for review.

Because Diaz-Cortez failed to demonstrate a gross miscarriage of justice at

his prior proceedings, he may not collaterally attack his 2004 removal order. See

Ramirez-Juarez v. INS, 633 F.2d 174, 175-76 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (“This

court has consistently held that an alien cannot collaterally attack an earlier

exclusion or deportation at a subsequent deportation hearing, in the absence of a

gross miscarriage of justice at the prior proceedings.”). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Diana SKORCZ, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Dustan L. Skorcz, Residences at Lago Buendia Association and Lake Buendia Master Association, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-2824

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 22, 2018

Tanner Andrews, of Tanner Andrews, P.A., DeLand, for Appellant.

Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, Emily Y. Rottmann, and C.H. Houston III, of McGuirewoods LLP, Jacksonville, for Appellee, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

No Appearance for other Appellees.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Confession of Error, we reverse the trial court's July 27, 2017 Final Judgment of Foreclosure and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Appellant's Motion for Attorney's Fees, filed *1022September 19, 2017, is provisionally granted should Appellant ultimately be determined to be the prevailing party below. If so determined, the lower court shall determine and assess reasonable attorney's fees for this appellate court proceeding. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.400(a), (b).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WALLIS, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Juan MATAMOROS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1757

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 04, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
MISSION:Provide Ready & Relevant National Guard Space Forces

VISION: National Guard Space forces, Ready, Relevant & Aligned as the premier reserve component 

to meet USSF & GCC warfighting requirements, and to support their states’ citizens in their 

time of need.

FACT SHEET

SPACE OPERATIONS

NATIONAL GUARD

NG SPACE MISSION FACTS

• The Air National Guard has been conducting space 

missions for over 25 years. 

• Only unit-equipped combat reserve component to the 

United States Space Force. 

• The nation’s primary surge-to-war reserve 

component space forces resides in 14 units, across 

7 States (AK, CA, CO, FL, HI, NY, OH) and 

1 Territory (GU). 

• 1,000+ Airmen make up 11% of Space Force 

professionals.

• ANG operates the nation’s only survivable and 

endurable strategic missile warning / nuclear 

detection capability. 

• ANG provides the nation’s strategic missile warning 

on the High Frontier.

• ANG provides 60% of the Space Force’s offensive 

space electronic warfare deployable capabilities.

25+ yrs 

experience in

Space Missions

11% of USSF

Space 

Professionals

60% of USSF

Offensive Space 

Electronic Warfare

State Unit

AK 213 Space Warning Sq

CA

148 Space Operations Sq

216 Space Control Sq

234 Intelligence Sq – OL-A

CO

233 Space Group

137 Space Warning Sq

138 Space Control Sq

233 Space Communications Sq

233 Security Forces Sq*

233 Logistics Readiness FLt*

233 Space Group - DET 1

FL 114 Space Control Sq

GU GU Space Control Sq

HI HI Space Control Sq

NY 222 Command & Control Sq

OH 126 Intelligence Sq