alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Gary ROBINSON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Sabrina ROBINSON, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2092

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 06, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's order dated September 29, 2017, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6212 

To provide for a moratorium on oil and gas leasing and exploration on 

the outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Florida until 2032, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2023 

Mr. RUTHERFORD (for himself, Mr. WALTZ, Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida, 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. SCOTT FRANKLIN of Florida, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. 

GIMENEZ, Ms. SALAZAR, Mr. SOTO, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. MAST, 

Mr. DONALDS, Mr. DUNN of Florida, Mr. BUCHANAN, and Mrs. 

CAMMACK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for a moratorium on oil and gas leasing and 

exploration on the outer Continental Shelf off the coast 

of Florida until 2032, 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 ‘‘Preserving Recreation, 

5 Oceans, Tourism, Environment, and Coastal Towns in 

6 Florida Act’’ or the ‘‘PROTECT Florida Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6212 IH

1 SEC. 2. MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS LEASING AND EX2 PLORATION ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL 

3 SHELF OFF COAST OF FLORIDA. 

4 (a) EXTENSION OF GULF COAST MORATORIUM.— 

5 Section 104(a) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act 

6 of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘2022’’ and inserting ‘‘2032’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) by inserting ‘‘, and may not issue a permit 

10 for oil and gas exploration (as such term is defined 

11 in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

12 Act) in’’ after ‘‘related activity’’. 

13 (b) ESTABLISHMENT OF ATLANTIC COAST MORATO14 RIUM.—Section 12 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

15 Act (43 U.S.C. 1431) is amended by adding at the end 

16 the following: 

17 ‘‘(g) MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS LEASING AND

18 SEISMIC TESTING OFF THE COAST OF FLORIDA.— 

19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not 

20 offer for oil and gas leasing, preleasing, or any re21 lated activity, including seismic testing, and may not 

22 issue a permit for oil and gas exploration in— 

23 ‘‘(A) any area in the Straits of Florida 

24 Planning Area; and 

25 ‘‘(B) any area in the South Atlantic Plan26 ning Area that is south of the northernmost latVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:24 Nov 11, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6212.IH H6212

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6212 IH

1 eral seaward administrative boundary of the 

2 State of Florida. 

3 ‘‘(2) APPLICATION.—This subsection shall 

4 apply during the period beginning on the date of the 

5 enactment of this Act and ending on June 30, 

6 2029.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Richard RENGEL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3398

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6064 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6064

To amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to provide 
    for the denial of certain applications for solar or wind energy 
            development projects right-of-way applications.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 25, 2023

  Mr. Simpson (for himself and Mr. Fulcher) introduced the following 
bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in 
     addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 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 amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to provide 
    for the denial of certain applications for solar or wind energy 
            development projects right-of-way applications.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Don't Develop Obstructive 
Infrastructure on our Terrain Act'' or the ``Don't DO IT Act''.

SEC. 2. DENIAL OF CERTAIN SOLAR AND WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 
              RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATIONS.

    Section 501 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
(43 U.S.C. 1761) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Solar or Wind Energy Development Project Right-of-Way 
Applications.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in 
the case of a solar or wind energy development project right-of-way 
application submitted under this section, the Secretary shall deny the 
application if the Secretary has received from the Governor of the 
State in which the proposed project is located notice that the State 
legislature has enacted legislation disapproving the proposed 
project.''.
                                 <all>
```
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**314 CA 14-00765**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

KELLY G. SHERIDAN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
DAVID E. SHERIDAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 3.)

PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, BUFFALO (MICHAEL B. POWERS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP, SYRACUSE (JANET D. CALLAHAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
KELLY M. CORBETT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, FAYETTEVILLE.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Martha E. Mulroy, A.J.), entered February 3, 2014. The order denied defendant’s motion to expand his parenting time with his son. It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Abasciano v Dandrea , 83 AD3d 1542, 1545).

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Caren HALL, Appellant, v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al., Appellee.

No. 1D17-3839

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 10, 2018

James H. Cerveny, Gainesville, for Appellant.

Robert Edwards of Choice Legal Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale; Sonia Henriques McDowell of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

In light of Appellee's confession of error, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for a hearing to resolve Appellant's exceptions to the magistrate's report.

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

March 29, 2002

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:   Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 2001;
      Confirmation of Receipt of Assurances from Arthur Andersen LLP

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      Digex, Incorporated engages Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") as its
independent public accountants. Andersen completed its audit work on our
consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2001 on
February 6, 2002, except for Note 1 and Note 6, as to which the date is February
25, 2002, and Andersen's opinion with respect to our consolidated financial
statements bear that date. However, we did not file our Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 until after March 14, 2002.

      We are aware of the contents of Release Nos. 33-8070 and 34-45590 and the
Addition of Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X (the "Temporary
Note"). Because the audit of our consolidated financial statements was completed
prior to March 14, 2002, we are not certain that the Temporary Note applies to
us. However, in an abundance of caution, we have requested and received from
Andersen a letter to the effect that Andersen has represented that its audit was
subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with the professional standards and that there was
appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on our audit, and
availability of national office consultation. Our significant foreign affiliates
were audited by other auditors, so the assurance from Andersen as to foreign
affiliates is not relevant.

      Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Commission accept
Digex, Incorporated's consolidated financial statements as audited by Andersen
in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                        Respectfully submitted,


                                        /s/ T. SCOTT ZIMMERMAN

                                        T. Scott Zimmerman
                                        Interim Chief Financial Officer,
                                        Vice President and Controller
Exhibit 10.168.1


 


EXHIBIT “A”


 



     


     


    

 


 


 



     


     


    

 


EXHIBIT
“B”


 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 


EXHIBIT
“C”


 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 


EXHIBIT
“D”


 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 


EXHIBIT “E”
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

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

J. MASIEL, Correctional Officer; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-17796

D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01390-LJOGBC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Barry Louis Lamon appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights

violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

FILED

JUL 26 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-17796

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.

2000), and based on res judicata, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th

Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lamon’s access to courts claim at

screening because the second amended complaint failed to state facts suggesting

that the alleged interference hindered Lamon’s efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous

legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (setting forth actual

injury requirement). 

The district court also properly dismissed Lamon’s claims with respect to the

supervisory defendants because the second amended complaint failed to state the

supervisors’ personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation or a

sufficient causal connection between any supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the

constitutional violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011)

(setting forth requirements for supervisory liability).

The district court properly dismissed the remainder of the action as barred

by the doctrine of res judicata because Lamon raised, or could have raised, his

claims in a prior action that involved the same nucleus of facts and was decided on

the merits. See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th

Cir. 2001) (“Res judicata ... bars litigation in a subsequent action of any claims that
3 11-17796

were raised or could have been raised in the prior action.” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lamon’s motions

for reconsideration because Lamon failed to show grounds warranting

reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5

F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth elements for reconsideration and

standard of review). 

Lamon’s remaining contentions are unavailing. 

The Clerk shall file the Reply Brief received June 25, 2012.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1519 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1519

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phaseout the Mass Transit 
                                Account.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2021

  Mr. Rice of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phaseout the Mass Transit 
                                Account.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Highway Restoration Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. PHASEOUT OF MASS TRANSIT ACCOUNT.

    (a) In General.--Section 9503(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) Phaseout.--In the case of fiscal years beginning 
        after September 30, 2021, each rate determined under paragraph 
        (2) shall be the applicable percentage of such rate. For 
        purposes of the preceding sentence, the applicable percentage 
        shall be determined under the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          The applicable
              ``In the case of fiscal year:                  percentage
                                                                is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022....................................................      80 percent
2023....................................................      60 percent
2024....................................................      40 percent
2025....................................................      20 percent
2026 and each fiscal year thereafter....................   0 percent.''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9503(e)(5)(A) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (6)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2021.
                                 <all>
```
#### Edgar MOTA-BRAGA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1521

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 22, 2017

Decided: September 27, 2017

Edgar Mota-Braga, Petitioner Pro Se. Sabatino Fioravante Leo, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*255PER CURIAM:

Edgar Mota-Braga, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Mota-Braga’s merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, *see INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *In*re *Mota-Braga*(B.I.A. Mar. 24, 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 21, 2011

t0914 

# Order

September 21, 2011

142980

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142980 COA: 298522 Wayne CC: 04-003659-FC DEANGELO THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
William WHITLOW, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3487

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
I.N., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-983

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joanne Diez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SUAREZ and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Wilmar JOLTEUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-4428

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
TRUST MORTGAGE, L. L. C., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK, N.A., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3323

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT
32.2
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of American Security Resources Corporation,
a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSBA for the year ended
December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), Marlin Williford, Chief Financial Officer, does hereby certify,
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to
his 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 result of operations of the Company.
  Date:
      September 3, 2008
              By: /s/ Marlin
      WillifordName:
      Marlin WillifordTitle:
      CFO
 
   A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Security Resources Corporation and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.2

             CONSENT OF BERENFELD, SPRITZER, SHECHTER & SHEER, CPA'S


<PAGE>

                          CONSENT OF FORMER INDEPENDENT
                           CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT




Intelilabs.com, Inc.
Water Gardens 1620 26th Street
3rd Floor Santa Monica, CA 90404

I hereby consent to the use in Intelilabs.com's Form 10-KSB, Amendment 1, for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2000, of our report dated August 31, 1999,
relating to the financial statements of Quentin Road Productions, Inc.
(now known as Intelilabs.com, Inc.).


Dated: November 15, 20000


-------------------------------
Berenfeld Spritzer Shechter & Sheer
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
Miami, Florida



                                       3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl John DEPASTINO, a.k.a. Darryl J. De Pastino, a.k.a. Darryl Depastino, a.k.a. David A. Depastino, a.k.a. David Allen Depastino, a.k.a. Darryl R. Johnson, a.k.a. Edward Robert Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50478

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Bryant Y, Yang, Esquire, Attorney, DOJ— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brianna Fuller Mircheff, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*269Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Darryl John Depastino appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Depastino contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on unsupported assumptions regarding his methadone usage and its impact on his ability to participate in a residential drug treatment program. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there was none. Contrary to Depastino’s contention, the court’s factual findings are supported by the record. *See United States v. Graf,*610 F.3d 1148, 1167 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02080**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 

### 02080\02080_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 02080\02080_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 

### 02080\02080_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 02080\Certification Statement Plant ID 02080.pdf Plant certification statement

2 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.