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

Case No. 5D17-2461

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 15, 2018

Rupak R. Shah, of Escobar & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Manolo Martinez appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds Two, Three, and Four. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Martinez's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the wiretap of his phone conversations, we reverse the summary denial of Ground One and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or for an evidentiary hearing. *See**Freeman v. State*, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) ("[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing *Maharaj v. State*, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996) ) ).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6040 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for gender transition in minors. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Ms. BOEBERT (for herself, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. BURLISON, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. 

CLOUD, Mr. BRECHEEN, Mr. OGLES, Mr. NEHLS, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, and Mr. LAMALFA) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for gender transition 

in minors. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Our Kids 

5 from Harmful Research Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR 

7 GENDER TRANSITION IN MINORS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law, no Federal funds may be used to fund re10 search or publications relating to gender transition in indiVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:49 Oct 26, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6040.IH H6040

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6040 IH

1 viduals under the age of 18, including any observational 

2 studies that gather evidence on the provision of hormonal 

3 treatments or surgical procedures on minors, for the pur4 pose of— 

5 (1) affirming a minor’s perception of his or her 

6 sex, if that perception is incongruent with such mi7 nor’s sex; or 

8 (2) affirming a minor’s asserted identity, if the 

9 asserted identity is incongruent with such minor’s 

10 sex. 

11 (b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the 

12 term ‘‘sex’’ shall be recognized based solely on a person’s 

13 reproductive biology and genetics at birth. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Andre JUSTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RESIDENT AGENCY; Erie Pennsylvania (Satellite Office); William J. Green Building; Edward J. Hanko; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Pittsburgh Leadership Agent; Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters Office; Robert F. Mueller, (Chief Agent James S. Yawne Director Agents), Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1375

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Andre Juste, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Andre Juste appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for failure to prosecute. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for ma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Juste v. Resident Agency,*No. 3:14-cv-00130-JPB-RWT (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 31, 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*
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of NaviSite, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, John J. Gavin, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date: November 2, 2004                               By: /s/ John J. Gavin, Jr.
                                                         ----------------------
                                                         John J. Gavin, Jr.
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
# Uradni list C 164A/29.

| | ISSN 1977-1045 |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 164A |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Zvezek 5729. maj 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1045

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 164A

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Zvezek 5729. maj 2014

---

| Obvestilo št. | Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Objave |
| | UPRAVNI POSTOPKI |
| | Evropska centralna banka |
| 2014/C 164A/01 | Podaljšanje roka za prijavo na mesto člana Upravnega odbora za pregled | 1 |

Obvestilo št.

Vsebina

Stran

V   Objave

UPRAVNI POSTOPKI

Evropska centralna banka

2014/C 164A/01

Podaljšanje roka za prijavo na mesto člana Upravnega odbora za pregled

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 164A/02 | Pregled Natečajev UL C A | 2 |

2014/C 164A/02

Pregled Natečajev UL C A

2

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

V Objave

UPRAVNI POSTOPKI

Evropska centralna banka

| 29.5.2014 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | CA 164/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2014

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

CA 164/1

---

Podaljšanje roka za prijavo na mesto člana Upravnega odbora za pregled

2014/C 164 A/01

ECB sporoča, da je rok za vložitev prijav na podlagi razpisa za prijavo interesa zunanjih strokovnjakov za člana in nadomestnega člana Upravnega odbora za pregled v Evropski centralni banki (Frankfurt na Majni, Nemčija), objavljenega v Uradnem listu Evropske Unije dne 1. maja 2014 (1), podaljšan do 2. junija 2014.

V Frankfurtu na Majni, 23. maja 2014

---

(1)  UL C 133 A, 1.5.2014, str. 1.

---

29.5.2014

| 29.5.2014 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | CA 164/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

CA 164/2

---

PREGLED NATEČAJEV UL C A

2014/C 164 A/02

Spodaj je naveden seznam UL C A, objavljenih v tekočem letu.

Če ni drugače navedeno, so bili UL objavljeni v vseh jezikovnih različicah.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

---
Oliver S. STEEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 4D18-467 4D18-498

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### TEE 

## ATTORNEYGENEOF TEXAS AUSTIN =S.TEXAS WTJiL WIJLSON *-I-r0RNEYoENl.GRAx.

Mr.W. K. Peace State Librarian Texas State Library Austin, Texas

Dear Mr. Peace: October 10, 1960 Opinion No.WW-950 Re: Will itbemandatory that thewords "State Archives and Library Building" be placed in permanent form on that Building thatwill house the Texas State Library? Your letter requesting an opinion from this department asks the following question:

"Will itbemandatory that thewords 'StateArchives and Library Building' be placed inpermanent form on that Building thatwill house the Texas State Library?" Article 678m-2, Vernon's Civil Statutes, as amended by Acts 55th Legislature, Second Called Session, 1957, ch. 21, P. 181, states inpart:

"Notwithstanding other provisions of law, the Legislature may appropriate money from the Motor Vehicle Inspection Fund for the purpose of constructing and initially equipping abuilding tobe known as the 'StateArchives and Library Building' to house the State Library and the State Archives, Museum and Land Office,
. . .' InHouse Bill 133, Section 1, Article 3, Acts 55th Legislature, Regular Session, 1957, ch. 385, p. 954, and inHouse Bill 4, Section 1, Article 3,Acts 56th Legislature, Third Called Session, 1959, ch. 23, p. 514, both ofwhich are appropriation bills, this building is referred to as the State Library and Archives Building. It isawell settled rule that "anappropriation bill cannot repeal, modify, or amend an existing state law."Mr. W. K. Peace, Page 2 (WW-950)

Conley v. Daughters of the Republic, 151 S.W. 877 (Civ. App. 1912), Linden v.Finley 9 Attorney General's Opinion2W%& 451, 4g S.W. 578 (18gg), (1959) Therefore, Article 678m-2 is controlling over the above cited appropriation bills. There isnothing mentioned inArticle 678m-2 about placing an inscription on the Building and it is the opinion of this office that it isnotmandatory that the name "State Archives and Library Building" be placed inpermanent form on this Building. However, It is the further opinion of this office that the Legislature has designated this Building as the "State Archives and Library Building" and ifa name is inscribed on theBuilding itmust be "State Archives and Library Building.' SUMMARY The Legislature inArticle 678m-2, Vernon's Civil Statutes, expressed its intention that the Building referred toabove should be known as the "State Archives and Library Building" but did not require that such title should be put inpermanent form on that Building. Yours very truly, WILL WILSON Attorney General ofTexas

MJS:mm APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE w. v. Geppert, Chairman Morgan Nesbitt Joe Allen Osborn Bob Eric Shannon By Qgh.$Ae@ t&&f& 'trouu Assistant

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Leonard Passmore
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2012-1157

Directorate Identifier: 2012NM061AD

ISB. 24-143 --- 9/26/11

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
#### Ronald A. SEARS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent.

No. 03-3180.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 17, 2004.

Phyllis Jo Baunach, Principal Attorney, Brian M. Simkin, Harold D. Lester, Jr., David M. Cohen, R. David Gale, Jr., of Counsel, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Sandra Mazliah, Principal Attorney, Joseph V. Kaplan, Passman *&*Kaplan, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Before NEWMAN, MICHEL, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: *AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.24


SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE KEYCORP
EXCESS CASH BALANCE PENSION PLAN
WHEREAS, KeyCorp has established the KeyCorp Excess Cash Balance Pension Plan (the “Plan”), and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of KeyCorp has authorized its Compensation Committee to permit amendments to the Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of KeyCorp has determined it desirable to amend the Plan and has accordingly authorized the execution of this Second Amendment,
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to such action of the Compensation Committee, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:
 
	
			
	 
	1.
	Article III, Section 3.1 shall be amended to delete it in its entirety and to substitute therefore the following:




“3.1 Eligibility. A Participant shall be eligible for an Excess Pension Benefit hereunder if the Participant (i) terminates employment with an Employer on or after age 55 with five or more years of Credited Service, (ii) terminates his or her active employment with an Employer upon becoming Disabled after completing five or more years of Credited Service and disability benefits have ceased under the KeyCorp Long-Term Disability Plan due to the Participant’s election of an Early or Normal Retirement under the Pension Plan, or (iii) dies after completing five years of Credited Service, and has a Beneficiary who is eligible for a benefit under the Pension Plan.
Effective January 1, 2003 a Participant shall also be eligible for an Excess Pension Benefit if the Participant becomes involuntarily terminated from his or her employment with an Employer for reasons other than the Participant’s Discharge for Cause, and (i) as of the Participant’s termination date the Participant has a minimum of twenty-five (25) or more years of Credited Service, and (ii) the Participant enters into a written non-solicitation and non-compete agreement under terms that are satisfactory to the Employer.
For purposes of this Section 3.1, hereof, the term “Discharge for Cause” shall mean a Participant’s employment termination that is the result of the Participant’s violation of the Employer’s policies, practices or procedures, violation of city, state, or federal law, or failure to perform his or her assigned job duties in a satisfactory manner. The Employer in its sole and absolute discretion shall determine whether a Participant has been Discharged for Cause.
Notwithstanding any of the forgoing provisions of this Section 3.1, however, a Participant’s eligibility for an Excess Pension Benefit shall be subject to the election requirements of Article V of the Plan.”
 
	
			
	 
	2.
	The amendment set forth in Paragraph 1 shall be effective as of January 1, 2003.



 
	
			
	 
	3.
	Except as otherwise amended herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, KeyCorp has caused this Second Amendment to the Plan to be executed by its duly authorized officer to be effective as of the first day of January, 2003.
 	
			
	 
	 
	 

	KEYCORP

	 
	 

	By:
	 
	/s/ Steven N. Bulloch

	Title: Assistant Secretary
Gregory WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3323

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IN the INTEREST OF A.R.H., J.R.H., and C.H., minor children,

R.H., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-4159

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Floyd TURNER, Appellant, v. Jennifer BAKER, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1999

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DISMISSED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adrian Efrain ONTIVEROS-CEDILLO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41682 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 4, 2017

Jason B. Smith, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Adrian Efrain Ontiveros-Cedillo appeals his 24-month sentence imposed following *219his guilty plea conviction for being found unlawfully present in the United States following deportation. He argues that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague and, therefore, his prior Texas felony conviction for family-violence assault should not have been categorized as a crime of violence making it an aggravated felony under Ú.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) (2015). Ontiveros-Cedillo concedes that this argument is currently foreclosed by *United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed,*No. 16-6259 (U.S. Sept 29, 2016). He preserves this issue for further possible review. We decline Ontiveros-Cedillo’s suggestion that we stay this matter pending a decision in *Lynch v. Dimaya,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 31, 195 L.Ed.2d 902 (2016). *See United States v.*Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 & n.34 (5th Cir. 2002).

Alternatively, Ontiveros-Cedillo contends that the district court plainly erred by characterizing his prior family-violence assault offense as a crime of violence because the offense, by its nature, does not involve a substantial risk that violent physical force may be used in committing the offense. He contends that, under the categorical approach, the Texas offense of family violence assault is plainly not “by its nature” a § 16(b) crime of violence.

Given our conclusion in *Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d at 678, that this same offense is of the type that always entails a substantial risk that physical force will be used, any error cannot be clear or obvious. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). Although we reached that conclusion in the context of assessing whether § 16(b) was vague as applied, it was necessary to determining the vagueness issue. *See United States v. Segura,*747 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *219published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2023

- 1039

_____________________________
K IMBERLY R OSE J ORDAN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Joshua M. Hawkes , Judge

.

February 21, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , N ORDBY , and L ONG

. JJ.
, concur

.

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

.

_____________________________2 Jessica Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES-ORLANDO and Parsec Inc./Budco Group, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Kevin SMITH, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 1D17-2433

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for Hallwood Consolidated  Resources Corporation for the quarter ended March 31,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000883953
<NAME>                        Hallwood Consolidated Resources Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1,978
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,529
<PP&E>                                         296,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                 223,672
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 86,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,888
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       30
<OTHER-SE>                                     50,126
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   86,967
<SALES>                                        7,377
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,462
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,493
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                438
<INCOME-TAX>                                   123
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            315
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   315
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .11
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 15


November 13, 1998

Catalina Marketing Corporation
11300 9th Street North
St. Petersburg, Florida  33716






Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We are aware that Catalina Marketing Corporation has incorporated, by reference
in its Registration Statement File Nos. 33-46793, 33-77100, 33-82456, 333-07525
and 333-13335, its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1998, which
includes our report dated October 15, 1998, covering the unaudited interim
financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Regulation C of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), that report is not considered a part of the
registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or
certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,



Arthur Andersen LLP