alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          12,697
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               118,998
<PP&E>                                         267,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                 148,535
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 328,574
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,435
<BONDS>                                         12,198
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           550
<OTHER-SE>                                     159,025
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   328,574
<SALES>                                         93,944
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,944
<CGS>                                           39,256
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,757
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   662
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,785
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,043
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,742
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,742
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Willis, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 908]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bruhn, J.), rendered August 29, 2002 in Ulster County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Defendant, an inmate, was found to be in possession of a piece of metal in the correctional facility where he was incarcerated and was charged with promoting prison contraband in the first degree. He pleaded guilty to this charge and was to be sentenced, as part of the plea agreement, to a prison term of 2 to 4 years, to run consecutively to the sentence he was then serving. During the plea proceedings, defendant indicated that he did not wish to be present in court for sentencing and agreed that his attorney would appear on his behalf. Defendant was thereafter sentenced in absentia as a second felony offender to the agreed-upon sentence. He now appeals.

Initially, given that defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, he is precluded from challenging the voluntariness of the plea *(see People v Ward,*2 AD3d 1219 [2003]; *People v Thomas,*307 AD2d 592, 592 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 625 [2003]). Insofar as the plea colloquy does not indicate that defendant’s factual recitation casts significant doubt upon his guilt, the exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; *People v Camp,*302 AD2d 629, 630 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 593 [2003]). In any event, were we to review the voluntariness of the plea or the adequacy of the allocution, we would find defendant’s claims to be without merit *(see People v Teague,*295 AD2d 813, 814 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 772 [2002]). The transcript of the plea proceedings discloses that Supreme Court sufficiently advised defendant of the consequences of pleading guilty and defendant responded that he understood them, but nevertheless wished to plead guilty. He then admitted that, *794while in prison, he possessed, a piece of metal which could be used to inflict harm.

Defendant further claims that he was illegally sentenced in absentia. The record, however, reveals that defendant intentionally chose not to attend the sentencing hearing. Therefore, we find that defendant waived his right to be present *(see People v Bennett,*162 AD2d 825, 825-826 [1990]). Likewise, defendant’s failure to move to vacate the sentence precludes him from asserting lack of compliance with CPL 400.21 and that he was illegally sentenced as a second felony offender *(see People v Proctor,*79 NY2d 992, 994 [1992]; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636, 637 [1983]). In any event, the consecutive sentence, which appears to be at the heart of defendant’s claim, was mandated by law given that defendant was serving an undischarged term of imprisonment at the time that he was sentenced *(see*Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Sammie Lee STALLWORTH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1405

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2018

Sammie Lee Stallworth, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as successive.

Wolf, Jay, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                           5,028
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,136
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     85,546
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               179,344
<PP&E>                                         173,857
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,215
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 331,578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,171
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           120
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,649
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   331,578
<SALES>                                        240,357
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               240,357
<CGS>                                          213,927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  213,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,935
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,613
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,322
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,322
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61
        

</TABLE>
L.L., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4997

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 26, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for belated appeal of the summary denial of petitioner's postconviction motion in the trial court is granted in circuit court case number 17-CJ-1470A for review of the trial court's order of November 2, 2017.

The circuit court clerk shall treat this order as a notice of appeal, promptly certify same and return it to this court as with any notice of appeal, and a new appellate case number will be assigned to this appeal and an acknowledgment letter will issue at that time. The summary record shall be transmitted to this court when the certified copy of this order is returned by the trial court clerk.

After a new appellate case number is assigned and an acknowledgment letter has issued, this court will issue an order advising the appellant of the due date of the optional initial brief.

LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02921]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board's (NSB) Committee on External Engagement 
hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the 
transaction of National Science Board business pursuant to the National 
Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.

TIME AND DATE: Monday, February 14, 2022, from 5:00-6:00 p.m. EST.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National 
Science Foundation.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda of the teleconference is: Approval 
of minutes from the December 2021 meeting; discussion of Science & 
Engineering Indicators engagement; discussion of the February 2022 
external panel and ideas for May and August panels relating to the 
geography of innovation; and revisiting NSB's goals for its honorary 
awards.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Nadine Lymn, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4dad8cdd9daf4dac7d29ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4dad8cdd9daf4dac7d29ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a>, 703/292-7000. Meeting information, 
updates and YouTube link may be found at the National Science Board 
website at www.nsf.gov/nsb.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-02921 Filed 2-8-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Jacob ALLEN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0909

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 17, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for belated appeal of the summary denial of petitioner's postconviction motion in the trial court is granted in circuit court case number CF13-002984-XX for review of the trial court's order of August 28, 2017.

The circuit court clerk shall treat this order as a notice of appeal, promptly certify same and return it to this court as with any notice of appeal, and a new appellate case number will be assigned to this appeal and an acknowledgment letter will issue at that time. The summary record shall be transmitted to this court when the certified copy of this order is returned by the trial court clerk.

After a new appellate case number is assigned and an acknowledgment letter has issued, this court will issue an order advising the appellant of the due date of the optional initial brief.

BLACK, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### United States Agency for Global Media

# AGENCY:

United States Agency for Global Media.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) announces the members of its SES Performance Review Board (PRB).

# ADDRESSES:

USAGM Office of Human Resources, 330 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20237.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ellona Fritschie, Business Review Coordinator, at                         *efritschie@usagm.gov*                         or (202) 382-7500.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314, USAGM publishes this notice announcing the individuals who will serve as members of the PRB for a term of one year. The PRB is responsible for: (1) Reviewing performance appraisals and ratings of Senior Executive Service and Senior Level members; and (2) making recommendations on other performance management issues, such as pay adjustments, bonuses, and Presidential Rank Awards. The names, position titles, and appointment types of each member of the PRB are set forth below:

1. Yolanda Lopez, Voice of America Director, Limited Term SES

2. Shawn Powers, Chief Strategy Officer, Career SES

3. James Reeves, Chief Information Officer, Career SES

Dated: February 10, 2022.

Armanda Matthews,

Program Support Specialist, U.S. Agency for Global Media.

[FR Doc. 2022-03326 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCTOBER 23, 2001 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-8597 JOHN B. O’NEAL., III, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JEANETTE G. GARRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia (October 23, 2001) PETITIONS FOR REHEARING Before BARKETT, GODBOLD and GOODWIN*, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

_______________________ *Honorable Alfred T. Goodwin, U.S. Circuit J udge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. The petition for rehearing by Christopher Garrison correctly notes that he2 was not named as a defendant in Count I of the second amended complaint. Our opinion is amended accordingly. Our opinion referred to summary judgment granted to Molloy. In fact, the district court denied Molloy’s motion for summary judgment, but at the conclusion of trial testimony it granted judgment as a matter of law for Molloy on Count V, the tortious interference claim, and it dismissed the Count V claim against Healthmaster, Molloy’s employer, whose only exposure was derivative of Molloy’s exposure. Our opinion is amended to show that the order granted to Molloy was judgment as a matter of law on Count V. The petition for rehearing filed by Moll oy and Healthmaster, Inc. asserts that, in view of the court’s ruling on Count V, it erred in not dismissing the Count I and Count III claims against them. The petition is DENIED. Appellant John B. O’Neal has filed an “opposition” to the petitions for rehearing filed by Molloy and Healthmaster, Inc., in which he contends that the court erred in granting judgment for Molloy on Count V. We treat this as a petition for rehearing on that point, and it is DENIED.
Memorandum 

To: File

From: Anita Lee, EPA Region IX

Date: June 8, 2012

Subject: Telephone Conversation with Michele Morris, Navajo Nation

This memorandum summarizes the main points of telephone conversation with Michele Morris, 

Director of Policy and Management of the Navajo Nation. 

EPA Participants: 

• Colleen McKaughan and Anita Lee, Air Division

• Laura Ebbert and Pamela Overman, Tribal Programs Office, Communities and 

Ecosystems Division

We discussed agenda topics and attendees for our June 13, 2012 consultation meeting with 

President Shelly of the Navajo Nation.
#### Lance WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHARP, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-17105

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

Lance Williams, Pro Se

Laraya Parnell, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: 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 **

Lance Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after revoking his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status because he had three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *Andrews v. King,*398 F.3d 1113, 1118 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly revoked Williams’ IFP status because at the time *240Williams filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as “strikes,” and he did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); *Coleman v. Tollefson,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015) (“[P]rior dismissal on a statutorily enumerated ground counts as a strike even if the dismissal is the subject of an appeal”); *Belanus v. Clark,*796 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal for failure to state a claim because claims were time barred properly counted as a strike); *Andrews v. Cervantes,*493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
STATE of Louisiana v. Cokey Lee ROBINSON

NO. 2017-KO-1784

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.
Quinton L. KNIGHT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3368

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
The WATERVIEW TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. LEISURE RESORTS, LLC, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3613

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 21, 2018]

Scott A. Cole of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Dean A. Morande, Joseph Ianno, Jr. and Henry S. Wulf of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gross, Taylor and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Timothy WETHERINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3823

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* § 948.06(8)(b)(1), (c)(3), Fla. Stat. (2015) ; *Jeffers v. State*, 106 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

KHOUZAM, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee Clinton HOBDY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10357 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 6, 2017

Gary C. Tromblay, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Lee Hobdy pleaded guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e) and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment and a two-year term of supervised release. He challenges the calculation of his guidelines range under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), which states that the base offense level is 20 if the offense occurred after a felony conviction for a crime of violence (“COV”).

Hobdy avers that his Texas robbery conviction no longer qualifies as a COV because the former residual clause and accompanying commentary of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) are invalid in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). That argument is unavailing, *see Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 892, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), and Texas robbery qualifies as an enumerated COV under the former commentary to § 4B1.2. *See United States v. Flores-Vasquez,*641 F.3d 667, 670 n.1 (5th Cir. 2011); *United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez,*469 F.3d 376, 380-81 (5th Cir. 2006), *overruled on other grounds by United States v. Rodriguez,*711 F.3d 541; 547-63 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc). We need not address Hob-dy’s argument that Texas robbery does not constitute a COV under § 4B1.2 because it lacks the element of use, threatened use, or attempted use of force. *See United States v. Olalde-Hernandez,*630 F.3d 372, 376 (5th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.
Luke KNIGHTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2948

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Kimberly GOODMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Sean GOODMAN, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0173

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
D.E. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160445

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Timothy Tad SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3612

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 17, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Frank FARROW, Appellant, v. CANAVERAL CUSTOM BOATS, INC. and Mark G. Smith, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-636

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EX PARTE A.C.T.

(In re: J.L.O. v. A.C.T.)

2160731

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
EX PARTE Tommy STURDIVANT

CR-16-0469

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.