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

No. 4D18-45

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 23, 2018

Deidrea Renaye Graham, Florida City, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant challenges the circuit court's summary denial of her postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedural 3.850. We reverse and remand.

She was charged with twelve counts of attempt to obtain a controlled substance by fraud, twelve counts of conspiracy to traffic in oxycodone, and twelve counts of practice of medicine without a license. She entered into a negotiated plea to one count of practicing medicine without a license, one count of the conspiracy, and to the twelve counts of attempt to obtain the controlled substance by fraud.

Appellant's motion raised double jeopardy claims and argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss several of the charged offenses on that basis before she entered the plea. The trial court neither obtained a response from the state nor attached documents to refute the claims. Rather, relying on *Novaton v. State* , 634 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1994), it determined that the claims failed as a matter of law because appellant had entered into a negotiated plea.

We disagree. *Novaton* does not preclude a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to advise there were potential double jeopardy issues. *Wilkerson v. State,* 128 So.3d 189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) ; *Rogers v. State* , 113 So.3d 960, 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ; *Tapp v. State* , 44 So.3d 666, 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

This court cannot review the merits of the ineffectiveness claim without record attachments. *See* *Pascoe v. State,* 225 So.3d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ; *Phillips v. State* , 229 So.3d 426, 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (citing *Peede v. State* , 748 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla. 1999) ("To uphold the trial court's summary denial of claims raised in a 3.850 motion, the claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.").

We also recognize a pleading defect within appellant's motion in that she failed to allege clearly that she would not have pleaded if advised accordingly. We therefore reverse and remand to allow appellant the opportunity to amend her allegations *416before the trial court addresses the claims. *See* *Rosado v. State* , 22 So.3d 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (holding that defendant was entitled to an opportunity to amend the motion to expressly allege that, but for the alleged errors, he would not have entered plea).

*Reversed and remanded.*

Warner, Taylor and Ciklin, JJ., concur.
Michael Neal ROLLINS v. STATE of Louisiana THROUGH the DEFT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, et al.

NO. 2018-C-0553

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

Denied.
AFS-12-509-E 

October 31, 2012 

 Exemption No. 8844C 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26736 

Mr. David L. Jones 

Corporate Aviation Education Director 

Aviation Institute of Maintenance 

4455 South Boulevard 

Virginia Beach, VA 23452 

Dear Mr. Jones: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8844, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated August 22, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Technical Educational Services, Inc., d.b.a. Aviation Institute of Maintenance 

(Aviation Institute) (operating under Air Agency Certificate V18T077K) for an extension of 

Exemption No. 8844, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations allows Aviation Institute to administer the aviation mechanic general 

written test to students immediately following their successful completion of the general 

curriculum but before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

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

in the Federal Register. The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, 

and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aviation Institute. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8844, as 
 2

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C.§§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8844, as amended, to 

February 28, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8844 remain the same. This letter must be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8844. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Deputy Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
Francisco GALLENO, d/b/a Hightech Engineering Solutions, Appellant, v. KCE, INC., a Florida corporation and DAK Shipping & Transport, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellees.

No. 1D18-1018

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2018

Alexander B. Cvercko and M. Alex Williams of Cvercko & Associates, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

*983DISMISSED . *See**Owens v. State* , 579 So.2d 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 683 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6085 

[Report No. 118–838] 

To prohibit the implementation of the Draft Resource Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Springs RMP Revision, Wyoming, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 26, 2023 

Ms. HAGEMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

DECEMBER 10, 2024 

Additional sponsor: Mr. NEWHOUSE

DECEMBER 10, 2024 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on October 26, 2023] 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6085 RH

A BILL 

To prohibit the implementation of the Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Rock Springs RMP Revision, Wyoming, and for other 

purposes. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6085 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF PRO4 POSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND 

5 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. 

6 The Secretary of the Interior shall not implement, ad7 minister, or enforce the Proposed Resource Management 

8 Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement referred 

9 to in the notice of availability titled ‘‘Notice of Availability 

10 of the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final En11 vironmental Impact Statement for the Rock Springs Field 

12 Office, Wyoming’’ published by the Bureau of Land Man13 agement on August 23, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 68187). 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Union Calendar No. 683 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6085 

[Report No. 118–838] 

A BILL 

To prohibit the implementation of the Draft Resion, Wyoming, and for other purposes. pact Statement for the Rock Springs RMP Revi- source Management Plan and Environmental ImDECEMBER 10, 2024 Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Jeremy JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHEN, Correctional Medical Doctor, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-16653

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 26, 2017

Jeremy Jones, Pro Se

James W. Walter, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Jones’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, is denied.

MEMORANDUM ***

Jeremy Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of defendant in Jones’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s evidentiary rulings and reverse only when an erronéous evidentiary ruling is prejudicial. *Gribben v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,*528 F.3d 1166, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court excluded the document that Jones sought 'to use only for impeachment on the basis that it had not been disclosed previously. However, “impeachment evidence does not have to be revealed in pretrial disclosures.” *Id.) see also*Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(l)(A)(ii) (requiring disclosure of documents used to support claims or defenses, unless use would be solely for impeachment). Nevertheless, the erroneous evidentiary ruling does not warrant reversal because the jury’s verdict on each of Jones’s claims was supported by evidence other than defendant’s unim-peached testimony. *See Harper v. City of Los Angeles,*533 F.3d 1010, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008) (reversal requires an abuse of discretion and prejudice); *Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc.,*244 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) (prejudice requires conclusion that “more probably than not,” the error tainted the verdict).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Rene Lee SEXTON, Appellant, v. Kim Louise DETORE, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2133

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 19, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## EPA**- Alliance**  **- Global**  **Meeting on 4WD and PHEV Test Procedures June**  **1 3**  **2013 9:00 am Eastern** 

**Agenda 1. Please join my meeting, Thursday, June 13, 2013 at 9:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time.**  **https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/274716329 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP)**  **- a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.**  **Dial +1 (312) 878 -**  **3080 Access Code: 274** **- 716**  **- 329**  **Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting ID: 27**  **4 -**  **716 -**  **329**

1. Introductions 2. 4 WD dyno testing a. Overview b. Testing / facility challenges c. Clarification of 4WD dyno confirmation and phase

- in d. Draft p roposal e. 4WD dyno factor program data review 3. E1 x Fuel Equations a. Feedback on R Factor = 1.0 proposal b. Adoption of E1x fuel economy equation in Tier 3 Final Rule 4. Part 10 66/1065 /86/600 Issues 5. PHEV Test Procedure s
#### John E. PEET Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-4040

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 5, 2017

Filed: October 11, 2017

John E. Peet, Pro Se

Thomas W. Crawley, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region V, Chicago, IL, Pamela A. Maren-tette, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, Lucy Weil-brenner, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

John E. Peet appeals the order of the district court1 affirming a partially favorable determination on his application for supplemental security income. Peet’s pro se brief raises several arguments beyond the scope of this court’s review of the December 18, 2014 decision before it, including claims that relate to prior disability proceedings. As to those claims that arguably relate to the appealed decision, this court concludes that (1) the administrative law judge (ALJ) properly limited his consideration to the period within the scope of a remand order of the Appeals Council, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.1477 (upon remand-from Appeals Council, ALJ shall take any action ordered by Appeals Council, and may take any additional action that is not inconsistent with remand order); and (2) the ALJ did not err in proceeding with Peet’s hearing despite his unrepresented status, as the record shows that Peet had been provided several notices of his right to be accompanied by representation, together with lists of organizations to contact for information regarding attor*321neys, see 42 U.S.C. § 1388(d)(2)(D) (Commissioner shall notify claimant in writing, together with notice of adverse determination, of options for obtaining attorney representatives, and shall advise of availability of legal service organizations providing free legal services); Wingert v. Bowen, 894 F.2d 296, 298 (8th Cir. 1990) (concluding claimant was advised of right to counsel through Social Security Administration’s notice of his hearing, which explained his right to counsel, and claimant’s response to notice). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. .

1

. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Valassis Communications, Inc. (the
Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:



(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (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.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 9, 2005 |  | /s/ Alan F. Schultz    
|                   |  | Alan F. Schultz        
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer



23
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angela WILLINGHAM, a.k.a. Angela Gustave, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-11278 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed (January 30, 2017)

R, Brian Tanner, James D. Durham, Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, Nancy Greenwood, Patricia Green Rhodes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Augusta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Angela Willingham, Coleman, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HULL, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Taylor appointed counsel for Angela Willingham in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record Reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Willingham’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED,
#### Bachitar SINGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-70690

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

Garish Sarin, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners

Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, *548Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Bachitar Singh and his family, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely motion to reopen because Singh failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation imposed on motions to reopen. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *Najmabadi,*597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Singh’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider facts or conduct a sufficient analysis.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0747

_________________

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

SHAWN M. STUTZMAN,

 Petitioner and Appellee,

 and

KRIS STUTZMAN,

 Respondent and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Kris Stutzman, to all counsel of 

record, and to the Honorable John Mercer, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 14 2024

08/14/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0747
Kasim MCDONALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4946

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0471

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL KEPLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 22, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 16 2023

08/16/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0471
MarkS. Burke

46 KingWbod G

Kingwood, TX 77339 nUUST°* TE**s

9 June, 2015

Court of "Appeals

First District of Texas

301 Fannin St

Houston, Texas 77002-2066

Dear Sir or Madam,

,ST. F"-E0/N

46 Kingwbod Greens Dr \*rmrof:*pr>EM q

RE: Request for copy of Supplemental Clerk's Record per letter dated 29 May (end.)

Court of Appeals Number: 01-14-01028-CV - Trial Court Case Number: 2014-63727

I refer to above and now enclose one legal sized USPS Priority Mail Prepaid envelope for

your convenience in order that you may send a copy of the Clerks' Supplemental Record

by return.

Ifyou have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me via email at

mark@browserweb.com or phone 832-654-3511 or fax 866-705-0576. Thanking you in

advance.

Sincere

Mark

End
*s

HLK COPY

N

p

g /£*S. COURT OF APPEALS. FIRST DISTRICT

m f'&'i*}301 Fann|n street " \?^> Houston, Texas 77002-2066

o

M M^-39,

RE: Case No. 01-14-01028-CV <*M$

Style: Browserweb Media Agency, Marx Burke ty-^^ a v. Maxus Energy Corporation 5W

Please be advised a supplemental clerk's record wst|kriled in the above

referenced cause on May 29, 2015. '5-v

T. C. Case « 2014-63727 Christopher A.^gryie, Clerk of the Court

The Honorable Harris Co.;n£k> District Clerk's Office

- civil c4p Harris County Distric^Gierk - Civil

201 Caroline, Ste 42$^

Houston, tx noaX~>^

DELIVERED VIA I-MS^

.J~£\ COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST DIS&tCT

.£;*&} 301 Fannin Street 4J C*><~J Houston,Texas77002-2066 (q?^

'Wf May 29. 2015

RE: Case No. 01-14-0M2$%V

.'015

Style: Browserweb Medi^Agency, Mar* Burke

v. Maxus Ena^jJ -Corporation

Please be a(*vi<Sigd a supplemental clerk's record was filed in the above

referenced cause Nay May 29, 2015.

TT. C. Case #,,.$0*4-63727 Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court

>-' The Honorable Harris County District Clerk's Office 4$itS? - Civil

^^i Harris County District Clerk - Civil

<£%-y 201 Caroline, Ste 420 ^^ Houston, TX 77002

%»?' DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wendell Dontay HERRON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4275

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 24, 2017

Decided: November 1, 2017

R. Clarke Speaks, SPEAKS LAW FIRM, PC, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wendell Dontay Herron appeals the district court’s judgment imposing a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment to be followed by one year of supervised release, upon revocation of Herron’s supervised release. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Wendell was denied effective assistance of counsel with regard to the revocation sentence. Wendell was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one. We affirm.

Wendell contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel in the district court proceedings. Specifically, Herron contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to request that his supervised release be terminated upon completion of his prison sentence, for failing to argue for a lower term of imprisonment, and for making arguments at the revocation hearing that were not consistent with their prehearing discussions. However, the Sixth Amendment applies only in “criminal prosecutions,” U.S. Const, amend. VI, and the Supreme Court has held that revocation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions for Sixth Amendment purposes. *Gagnon v. Scarpelli,*411 U.S. 778, 782, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) (holding that probation revocation is not a stage of *286criminal prosecution); *Morrissey v. Brewer,*408 U.S. 471, 480, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (holding that a parole revocation proceeding “is not part of the criminal prosecution and thus the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply”). Furthermore, the record does not conclusively establish that Herron was denied his due process or statutory right to counsel.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny as moot Her-ron’s motion to expedite. This court requires that counsel inform Herron, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States, for further review. If Herron requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Herron. 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*