alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of Louisiana v. Jonathan M. LOPEZ

NO. 17-KA-507

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

March 28, 2018

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Paul D. Connick, Jr., Metairie, Terry M. Boudreaux, Gretna, Darren A. Allemand

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, JONATHAN M. LOPEZ, R. Steven Lemoine

Panel composed of Judges Stephen J. Windhorst, Hans J. Liljeberg, and Marion F. Edwards, Judge Pro Tempore

EDWARDS, JUDGE PRO TEMPORE, J.

Appellant, the State of Louisiana, appeals a trial court's ruling that granted defendant's motion to quash the bill of information. For the reasons that follow, the State's appeal is dismissed, and we reserve the State's right to file an application for supervisory writs.

***STATEMENT OF THE CASE***

On March 27, 2017, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney's Office filed a bill of information charging defendant, Jonathan Lopez, with possession of marijuana, third offense, in violation of La. R.S. 40:966(C). Defendant pled not guilty at his arraignment on March 29, 2017. Thereafter, on May 12, 2017, defendant filed a motion to quash the bill of information, arguing that one of his prior convictions could not be used as a predicate conviction for enhancement purposes. The trial court granted defendant's motion following a hearing on May 30, 2017. The State timely sought the instant appeal.

***ANALYSIS***

Only a final judgment or ruling is appealable. La. C.Cr.P. art. 912(A). A final judgment is one which puts an end to the proceedings.

*1271*State v. Arceneaux* , 13-953 (La. App. 5 Cir. 04/23/14), 140 So.3d 304, 306. A motion to quash an indictment or any count thereof may be appealed by the State. La. C.Cr.P. art. 912 (B)(1). When read and interpreted in reference to subsection A, a ruling on a motion to quash must be a final judgment that puts an end to the proceedings in order to be appealable. *Arceneaux* , 140 So.3d at 306. The quashing of a predicate offense does not put an end to the proceedings and, instead simply reduces the grade of the offense. *State v. Millette* , 14-76 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/29/14), 164 So.3d 865.

In this case, the trial court's quashing of the 2009 predicate only reduced the grade of the offense from a possession of marijuana, third offense to a possession of marijuana, second offense. Therefore, it is not a final, appealable judgment. The State's proper avenue to seek review is by an application for a writ of review under our supervisory jurisdiction. *Arceneaux, supra* ; *Millette, supra* .

***DECREE***

Accordingly, we dismiss the present appeal. We reserve to the State the right to file a proper application for supervisory writs, in compliance with U.R.C.A. Rule 4-3, within fifteen days from the date of this decision. Further, we construe the motion for appeal as a notice of intent to seek a supervisory writ so the State is not required to file a notice of intent nor obtain an order setting a return date pursuant to U.R.C.A. Rule 4-3. *State v. Donaldson* , 13-703 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/19/13), 130 So.3d 394.

***APPEAL DISMISSED***
APPLICANT: ALESHA DEAN APPLICATION NO. WR-79.040-02

APPLICATION FOR 11.07 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ACTION TAKEN

FILEDVVND SET FOR SUBMISSION

COURT OF p^E°/A/

Abel^osta,

ApP£ALS

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         1084681
<NAME>                        APPLE SUITES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                          581,344
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 2,140,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      0
<PP&E>                                                       93,719,632
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  496,209
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               99,489,008
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 0
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                     28,591,260
<OTHER-SE>                                                    (493,260)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 99,489,008
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              2,687,117
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 2,321,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            1,245,044
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 365,465
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             365,465
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    365,465
<EPS-BASIC>                                                         .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       .14





</TABLE>
# Laboratory ADalyUcal Storage and Retrieval (LASAR.) (ContMt 

### U.] [Help)

# ~ QEQ HQm > 

## ""'tr:e ,.. 'y•sWJt 

## lllE LABAR 

## Web Appllcadon The Onlgon DEQ**~.R**W8b appliadion allaws you ID I'Mi-1111111itamg dnltum 

### the LabonllllryAnalytical 8toJ11911and 

### Rei!IIMII 

### (LASAR) dlllllbua. In 

### the LASAR W8b Appllclltlon you will hiMIIhe apllan ID 

### -.ldl**far~** dnl

### vie en lnlltnte:IMI Map, or -rdl by a comblnllllon ofallarta

### tom Geagraphlf', 

### hlona, Subprajlldl, Sampling 

# c..., PentmellltiiiiAnlllylea or DaiH ID genentte arHUHaet. 

### PL..EAIE NIJIE: AaofDeoember 

### 111,2012, 

### rnaatn- dati Ia 

### not being eddlld ID 

### L.ASAR

### W.b, which 18 now

### a rapa.I!Dryofhr.tllrtcanalyllcal**diiiii.An-~lalnde;** • 

### 1 ••rrtanddnlcurmntlyln L..AIIARwabwtll ba mlgntiiKIID the new**~m.** Unllllhe newayAim 18 completed, n- analy!ICIII daa (aoloio:BIIaflotr December 181,2012, wtll bi11Millablll an 

### requutfnlm lila DEQ labllt'lllllfy. 1b

### raqueatllilli dnl pr-e corrtadlhll "Riclloal SeMcllli Sedlon oflhe DEQ laborataoy at(503) 183-5781, ar 

### ernall 'e''rho'AGHQammN•· 7ml07

.. Upgraded 

### to LuarWebv 1.34. 

### See tb• 

# ""'n¥1 'W"ldkdwJW

Dltclalliner. 

### The analyllcel 

### data potled 

### an 

### I..ASotJtwllb wugenerated ID 

### Mil\'epecltlcda1a quality 

### ob.)edNN lbrlhll prvgra11111 and 

## PRI!ects under¥1tilcto 

### taey -aantntted.A porllon of 

### the $8mpl"

### wana analyzed 

## bV 0f118JIIz:alfona otoertlen DEQ. 

### Re-.tew 

### of the non-DEQ 

### gentntad 

### da1a 18 limited ID 

### lnt'ormaUan 9Uppllecl by

### t1e nM-DEQorganlzaUDn. 

### U..nt of 

### the 

### da1a 

### obtained fnlm I..ASARwab 

### I'NittiHI 

### ableiD und.mand potln!lal llmllil!lons oflha 

### ldlrma11ound Haeultabllllylbr 

### lllelrlntlnded U88. 

### Field 

### QlalllyConllol eampleuhould be 

### revi8wed for

### their potential impaalon 11111118/111188 

### in**a~** 

## -nt.or multiple eampling 

# -m.. involved fora project. 

### Reeullil vAll a dala •alb' re...1 of"B"andlor foiiiiWIId by 

### "eat" (eaUmmd) havelntblmeUon 

### peRslnlna ID llatrweullln lhlllabonllllry 

### naportiD a&8i8t 

### in lheevaluatingthelirrilations oflie

### dala. The**NC~Grlil** 

### &IIIIMiilablll in PDFonlhiaeileforeampling-taainca2002. 

### Dalau-8/eeapededto IIIViewtheM 

### naportaiD aacertain the

.. i1111iili1rfot'lheirintended 

# pu,_. 0 I hawlll&d and undenlblnd lhe potenUaJ lmllatone oftle 

### dala posted 

### on I..ASAR 

### Web Application 

### 1. Select 

## !WeJDI: 

## Ia .. b ond CDnllnu011o**I** 

### 2. 

### 8eardl for Sampling 

### Dllla By 

### • &MIA or 

### Billet Multiple Cltlllla ·I lilt

### wllh

• Statf.gQI • SubpmJpcp 

### • St!mp!lna EY!n!l CC81Hl a paraDl!t!mlAnalvtH 

### • .ltmHLasarWeb Help file Oregon DEQ Laboratory Page For LASAR application or data specific questions or comments contact lasarhelp@deg.state.or.us

.

Lasar Web Version: 1.34 Data Last Updated: !Oreaon DEC's Privacy Notice!
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6022 

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to exempt from CFATS 

regulations certain propane tanks, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 24, 2023 

Mr. BURLISON (for himself and Mr. LATTA) introduced the following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to exempt 

from CFATS regulations certain propane tanks, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Propane Accessibility 

5 and Regulatory Relief Act’’. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6022 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM CFATS REGULATIONS OF CER2 TAIN PROPANE TANKS. 

3 The Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such 

4 actions as may be necessary to exempt from any CFATS 

5 regulation (as such term is defined in section 2101 of the 

6 Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 621)) any pro7 pane tank with a capacity of up to 126,000 pounds of pro8 pane. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
L.H. grandmother of D.S., D.S., D.S. and D.S., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2448

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Roopesh SUKHRAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2141

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PREMARK
INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S 1995 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS FILED IN ITS ANNUAL REPORT ON
FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                          19,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  397,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,700
<INVENTORY>                                    347,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               879,700
<PP&E>                                         939,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 514,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,961,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          603,100
<BONDS>                                        121,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        69,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     939,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,961,300
<SALES>                                      2,213,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,213,400
<CGS>                                        1,420,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,420,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (400)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                120,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                    41,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             78,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                 158,700
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   237,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Royster Ex *parte.*—First *case.*

*Petition for Habeas Carpus.*

'To entitle a person in confinement, by virtue of any warrant, order or process, to a writ of *Saleas Corpus,*a copy thereof must accompany his petition, or a legal ex, cuse must be shown for the omission.

For if it appear that the warrant, order or process shows a valid and legal commitment, the application should be denied.

The bill upon which a writ of *ne exeat*is founded constitutes part of the process by which the sheriff is authorized to arrest and confine the defendant; and his petition for *Saleas Corpus*should be accompanied by a copy thereof, and of the order of the judge directing the writ to issue, otherwise the petition is insufficient.

Petition to this court for *Habeas Corpus,*by David Royster, imprisoned by the sheriff of Pulaski county, under a writ of *ne exeat.*The petition was not accompanied by a copy .of the bill upon which the writ was obtained, nor of the order of the judge directing the clerk of the Pulaski circuit court to issue the writ. A copy of the writ under which the sheriff held the petitioner in confinement, was alone exhibited with the petition. In other respects the petition was similar to the one reported in *‘fRoyster Ex parte*— second *case,”*immediately following this case.

Watkins & Curran, for the petitioner..

Oldham J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

To entitle a person in confinement under or by virtue of any warrant, order or process, to a writ of *Habeas Corpus,*he must accompany his petition with a copy of the warrant, order or process, or show a legal excuse for the omission. *Beard Ex parte,*4 *29
      *Ark. R.*9. *Rev. St.*434, *sec. 5.*For, if it should appear to the court or judge, to whom the petition may be addressed, that the warrant, order or process shows a valid and legal commitment, the application should be denied.

The statute provides that every writ, of *ne exeat*shall be accompanied by the bill upon which it is founded. *Rev. St.*582, *sec.*8'. It thus constitutes and forms part of the process by which the sheriff is authorized to arrest and confine the defendant. The petition is in this respect insufficient. It does not exhibit a copy of the,bill or judge’s order therein directing the writ of *ne exeat*to issue, nor show a legal excuse for the omission. A copy of the writ alone accompanies this petition; the presumption of law is, that it was regularly issued for proper cause until the contrary is made to appear by legal evidence. Application denied.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Joshua Collins v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00539-CR

Trial court case number: D-1-DC-16-300760

Trial court: 167th District Court of Travis County

The trial court found appellant, Joshua Collins, guilty of the felony offense of 

robbery and assessed his punishment at confinement for thirty years. Appellant has filed a

“Request to Abate Appeal,” asking that the Court “permanently abate this appeal,” 

overturn his conviction, and remand the case to the trial court based on “the trial court’s 

and the State’s failure to comply with the record keeping requirements” of Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure article 39.14. The motion is ordered carried with the case.

Appellant also has filed a second motion for an extension of time to file his brief. 

The motion is granted. Appellant’s brief is due to be filed no later than 30 days from the 

date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 31, 2017
Curt LOCKETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3626

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 12, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis James ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30007

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 25, 2017

Jessica Anne Betley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USGF—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Louis James Romero, Pro Se

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), Romero’s request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Louis James Romero appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Romero contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district 'court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Wesson,*583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Because Romero was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the district court correctly determined that he is not eligible for a sentence reduction. *See id.*

Contrary to Romero’s argument, the district court adequately explained its determination and it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. *See Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (only if defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction does the district court proceed to the step of considering the section 3553(a) sentencing factors). Romero’s arguments that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender and that the district court violated double jeopardy when it enhanced his sentence based on a prior conviction are not cognizable in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. *See Dillon,*560 U.S. at 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Gary DILLON v. PICO, INC.

2016-CT-01290-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: February 19, 2018 Closed: April 5, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



RAE Systems Inc.

San Jose, California



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-113437 and 333-109840) and Form S-8 (Nos.
333-105368, 333-88684, 333-85720, and 333-32678) of RAE Systems Inc. of our reports dated June 6, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements of RAE Systems Inc. and the effectiveness of RAE Systems Inc.s internal control over
financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A No. 2. In our report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, we disclaim an opinion on managements assessment and on the effectiveness of RAE
Systems Inc.s internal control over financial reporting.



|                    
|--------------------
|/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
|BDO Seidman, LLP    
|San Jose, California
|June 6, 2005
EX PARTE J.L.R.

1160240 (2150805)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report included in this Form 10-K/A, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statement No. 333-47362 on Form S-8, No. 333-41726 on Form S-3/A,
No. 333-64798 on Form S-3/A, No. 333-68084 on Form S-8, No. 333-69418 on Form
S-3 and No. 333-69408 on Form S-3.

                                              /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                              -----------------------
                                              Arthur Andersen LLP
San Jose, California
October 26, 2001
#### Peter ZEPPEIRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC; Northwest Trustee Services, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55747

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*593Submitted February 10, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed March 06, 2017

Patricia Renee Rodriguez, Attorney, Rodriguez Law Group, Inc., Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Jan T. Chilton, Attorney, John B. Sullivan, Esquire, Mary Kate Sullivan, Esquire, Severson <& Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, Kerry W. Franich, Severson & Wer-son, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Green Tree Servicing, LLC

Charles E. Katz, Esquire, Attorney, Routh Crabree Olsen, P.S., Bellevue, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Northwest Trustee Service, Inc.

Before: SCHROEDER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Peter Zeppeiro appeals from the district court’s judgment after dismissal of his second amended complaint in this California foreclosure case. Zeppeiro alleges that defendant Green Tree Servicing, LLC (“Green Tree”) violated provisions of California’s Homeowner’s Bill of Rights (“HBOR”), Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(6), and Unfair Competition law (“UCL”), Business and Professions Code, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200,

We decline to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 284(a) and affirm on the merits.

In this appeal Zeppeiro contends the district court erred in holding he failed to state a claim for violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(6), and in holding that the statute does not create a private right of action. There was no error. The HBOR states several specific provisions where a homeowner is granted a private right of action to sue for monetary damages; Section 2924(a)(6) is not included. Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.12(b).

Since there is no pending foreclosure of Zeppeiro’s property, and he does not claim he paid any money to the defendants on account of their allegedly unlawful acts, he lacks standing to pursue a UCL claim. *See Hall v. Time Inc.,*158 Cal.App.4th 847, 854-55, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 (2008).

The district court did not err in denying leave to file a third amended complaint. Zeppeiro fails to show how he could have remedied the deficiencies in his complaint. Accordingly, there .was no abuse of the district court’s discretion. *See Bowen v. Oistead,*125 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 1997).

Finally, the district court did not err in granting Green Tree’s request for judicial notice. Zeppeiro made no objection.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,