alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1204

_____________________________

ISAAC JACKSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County.

Gregory S. Parker, Judge.

June 5, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

KELSEY, WINOKUR, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Isaac Jackson, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# Publicatieblad C 19A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0995
  doi:10.3000/19770995.CA2014.019.dut |
| --- | --- |
| Publicatieblad
  van de Europese Unie | C 19A |
| | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Mededelingen en bekendmakingen | 57e jaargang22 januari 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0995

doi:10.3000/19770995.CA2014.019.dut

Publicatieblad

van de Europese Unie

C 19A

Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal

Mededelingen en bekendmakingen

57e jaargang22 januari 2014

---

| Nummer | Inhoud | Bladzijde |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Adviezen |
| | BESTUURLIJKE PROCEDURES |
| | Europees Geneesmiddelenbureau |
| 2014/C 019A/01 | Kennisgeving van annulering | 1 |

Nummer

Inhoud

Bladzijde

V   Adviezen

BESTUURLIJKE PROCEDURES

Europees Geneesmiddelenbureau

2014/C 019A/01

Kennisgeving van annulering

1

OVERZICHT VAN DE IN DE C A-SERIE VAN HET PUBLICATIEBLAD GEPUBLICEERDE VERGELIJKENDE ONDERZOEKEN

Hierbij vindt u een lijst van C A-publicatiebladen Vergelijkende onderzoeken die in 2014 tot op heden gepubliceerd werden.

Deze publicaties verschenen — tenzij anders vermeld — in alle officiële talen.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |

5

6

11

19

| NL | |
| --- | --- |

NL

---

V Adviezen

BESTUURLIJKE PROCEDURES

Europees Geneesmiddelenbureau

| 22.1.2014 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | CA 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2014

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

CA 19/1

---

Kennisgeving van annulering

(2014/C 19 A/01)

Het Europees Geneesmiddelenbureau heeft besloten de volgende selectieprocedures te annuleren:

| — | EMA/CA/S/039: arbeidscontractant (korte termijn), wetenschappelijke ondersteuning bij de Europese Bewaking van het gebruik van antimicrobiële middelen in de diergeneeskunde (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/039: arbeidscontractant (korte termijn), wetenschappelijke ondersteuning bij de Europese Bewaking van het gebruik van antimicrobiële middelen in de diergeneeskunde (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1),

| — | EMA/CA/S/040: arbeidscontractant (korte termijn), wetenschappelijk secretariaat voor adviezen aan de Europese Commissie over antimicrobiële weerstand, afdeling Diergeneesmiddelen (FG IV) (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/040: arbeidscontractant (korte termijn), wetenschappelijk secretariaat voor adviezen aan de Europese Commissie over antimicrobiële weerstand, afdeling Diergeneesmiddelen (FG IV) (2).

---

(1)  PB C 320 A van 6.11.2013, blz. 2.

(2)  Zie voetnoot 1.

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6723 

To reaffirm the applicability of the Act of June 18, 1934, to the Samish 

Indian Nation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2023 

Mr. GALLEGO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reaffirm the applicability of the Act of June 18, 1934, 

to the Samish Indian Nation, 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. REAFFIRMATION OF LAW. 

4 The applicability of the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 

5 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.; 48 Stat. 984, chapter 576) (com6 monly known as the ‘‘Indian Reorganization Act’’) is re7 affirmed for the Samish Indian Nation. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6723 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO IMPACT ON TREATY RIGHTS. 

2 Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as affecting 

3 treaty rights under the Treaty of Point Elliott. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Order entered July 9, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00051
- CV WINSTON ACQUISITION CORP, Appellant

V. BLUE VALLEY APARTMEN TS, INC, Appellee On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 11
- 01373



### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s July 5, 2013 notice of incomplete record or, in the alternative, motion to extend time to file appellant’s brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellant to make ar rangements to have the remainder of the reporter’s record filed within thirty days of the date of this order. Appellant is further ORDERED to file its brief within thirty days after the complete reporter’s record is filed.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTI CE
#### Robert G. CANTRELL, on behalf of Scharlie Anne CANTRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-4375

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 26, 2017

Filed: July 27, 2017

Jean C. Owen, Andrea McGrath Weh-ner, Mission, KS, for appellant.

Julia C. Walker, Spec. Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (Tammy Dickinson, U.S. *449Atty., Lisa A. Thomas, Acting Chief Counsel, Region VII, Soc. Sec. Admin., Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Robert G. Cantrell, on behalf of his deceased daughter Scharlie Cantrell, appeals the district court’s1 order upholding the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Having jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this court affirms.

Cantrell raises specific challenges to an administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) residual functional capacity (RFC) determination. He asserts that the ALJ erred by not adopting the RFC opinion of a treating psychologist, and objects to the ALJ’s reliance on a vocational expert’s testimony in response to a. hypothetical containing the challenged RFC determination finding Scharlie not disabled.- This court agrees with the district court that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. *See Harvey v. Colvin,*839 F.3d 714, 715 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review); *Perks v. Astrue,*687 F.3d 1086, 1092 (8th Cir. 2012) (claimant has burden of establishing RFC; while RFC assessment draws from medical sources for support and must be supported by some medical evidence, it is ultimately administrative determination reserved to Commissioner); *Perkins v. Astrue,*648 F.3d 892, 897 (8th Cir. 2011) (treating physician’s opinion does not automatically control, as record must be evaluated as whole).

The judgment is affirmed.'

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr„ United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### The New York, Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., Resp’t, v. The Atlantic Refining Co., App’lt.

Motion for re-argument denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 11486 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee

v. JAMES LEE WILLIAMS, II, also known as James Lee Williams , Defendant

- Appell ant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CR

- 225

- 1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Lee Williams, II, federal prisoner # 97021

- 079, appeals the denial of his motion for extraordinary relief challenging the legality of the restitution order imposed in connection with his 2013 conviction for wire fraud. In his brief, he renews his challenge to the legality of the restitution order . Williams does not challenge the finding by the district court that there was no legal basis for a postco nviction motion challenging the restitution order.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 24, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-11486 Document: 00514695273 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2018No. 17

- 11486

2 The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Williams’s motion

. See United States v. Miller , 599 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2010 ); United States v.
Hatten , 167 F.3d 884, 887 & n.6 (5th Cir. 1999). Williams’s motion is “an unauthorized motion which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain. Thus, he has appealed from the denial of a meaningless,
unauthorized motion.” United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 14 0, 142 (5th Cir. 1994)

. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 17-11486 Document: 00514695273 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2018
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6548 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to provide local 

areas more flexibility in the use of funds for incumbent workforce training programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2023 

Mr. DUARTE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

to provide local areas more flexibility in the use of funds 

for incumbent workforce training programs. 

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 ‘‘Professional Growth 

5 and Retention Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN RESERVATION OF FUNDS. 

7 Section 134(d)(4)(A) of the Workforce Innovation 

8 and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3174(d)(4)(A)) is amend9 ed— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6548 IH

1 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘20’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘40’’; and 

3 (2) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as 

4 clauses (iii) and (iv), respectively, and inserting the 

5 following: 

6 ‘‘(ii) INCREASE IN RESERVATION OF

7 FUNDS.—Notwithstanding clause (i), with 

8 respect to a local area that had a rate of 

9 unemployment of not more than 3 percent 

10 for six or more months in the previous pro11 gram year, as determined by the State, 

12 clause (i) shall be applied by substituting 

13 ‘50 percent’ for ‘40 percent’.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Janice Sue TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A. Washington ADDUCI, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-15368 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(May 22, 2017)

Janice Sue Taylor, Pro Se

*801Before HULL, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Janice Taylor, a federal prisoner proceeding *pro se,*appeals the district court’s dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. The district court determined that she did not meet the requirements of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) saving clause, and that she previously filed a § 2255 motion in 2012. On appeal, Taylor argues that she can bring a habeas challenge under § 2241 because she challenges the illegality of her detention. As to the merits, Taylor argues the trial court: (1) abused its discretion in denying a continuance shortly after she retained replacement counsel, forcing her to represent herself; (2) violated her Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine a witness when it denied her request to subpoena the author of an IRS assessment; (3) violated her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause at sentencing by imposing additional punishment for a lesser included offense; and (4) abused its discretion by imposing restitution that was not authorized by statute.

Typically, collateral attacks on the validity of a federal conviction or sentence must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *Sawyer v. Holder,*326 F.3d 1363, 1365 (11th Cir. 2003). “[Challenges to the execution of a sentence, rather than the validity of the sentence itself, are properly brought under § 2241.” *Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta,*542 F.3d 1348, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008). The saving clause of § 2255 permits a federal prisoner to file a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241 if the petitioner establishes that the remedy provided for under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of her detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); *see also McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc.,*851 F.3d 1076, 1081 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

“To determine whether a prisoner satisfies the saving clause, we ask only whether the motion to vacate is an adequate procedure to test the prisoner’s claim.” *McCarthan,*851 F.3d at 1086. We determine “whether the prisoner would have been permitted to bring that claim in a motion to vacate.” *Id.*at 1086-87. “In other words, a prisoner has a meaningful opportunity to test his claim whenever section 2255 can provide him a remedy.” *Id.*at 1087.

In this case, the district court did not err in concluding that Taylor failed to satisfy the. saving clause, and thus that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the merits of Taylor’s claims under § 2241. Taylor had an opportunity to bring all four issues listed above in her earlier § 2255 motion, and thus her “remedy by motion was not inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [her] detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Thus, we affirm the dismissal of Taylor’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 1997
THIRD QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           7,634
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          14,083
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,800
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    452,754
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        304,365
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,233
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 802,304
<DEPOSITS>                                     456,872
<SHORT-TERM>                                   139,398
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             27,657
<LONG-TERM>                                     61,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                     117,288
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 802,304
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 16,117
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               22,466
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                38,583
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,742
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,511
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           19,072
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      225
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  38
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,881
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,582
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,582
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,041
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .79
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.51
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,931
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,031
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       69
<RECOVERIES>                                        46
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,233
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,233
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification
 
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Aviat Networks as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 Date: September 9, 2010
    /s/ Thomas L. Cronan IIIName:
    Thomas L. Cronan IIITitle:
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6900 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6900

  To amend title 10, United States Code, to clarify the scope of the 
  SkillBridge program of the Department of Defense, to require annual 
circulation of information about such program to certain members of the 
 Armed Forces serving on active duty, and to require an annual public 
    awareness campaign to inform potential employers of the program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 22, 2023

 Ms. Slotkin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 10, United States Code, to clarify the scope of the 
  SkillBridge program of the Department of Defense, to require annual 
circulation of information about such program to certain members of the 
 Armed Forces serving on active duty, and to require an annual public 
    awareness campaign to inform potential employers of the program.

    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 ``Continuing to Serve Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFYING SCOPE OF SKILLBRIDGE PROGRAM.

    Section 1143(e)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, which includes private and public employers and employers 
that are organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of 
such Code'' after ``civilian sector''.

SEC. 3. EXPANDING PARTICIPATION IN SKILLBRIDGE PROGRAM.

    Section 1143(e) of title 10, United States Code, as amended by 
section 2, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(5) For any program under this subsection, the Secretary 
concerned shall on an annual basis--
            ``(A) circulate information about the program, including 
        information concerning eligibility for the program and the 
        application process, to members of the armed forces serving on 
        active duty under the jurisdiction of the Secretary concerned; 
        and
            ``(B) engage in a public awareness campaign to inform 
        potential employers of program participants of the existence of 
        the program and explain to such employers how the program 
        operates, with a focus on increasing the number and broadening 
        the types of employers that hire program participants.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### OLIVER vs. MALONEY.

Appeal from McLennan county.

*Boundary Bines*— Evidence.—The controversy in this case involves the true locations of the lines of survey, the appellant insisting that the line of A’s survey should be carried eastwardly to the west line of the B survey, because the latter is the older, and the field notes of the former call for the latter’s west line. Such doctrine applies only to such cases wherein the lines sought have been made ' " on the grbuiidj'or iUm’ade, have been lost — not facts in the case. — ‘The line’ here had been properly established on the ground. See 30 - "Texas, 1&5E’’for^fbpeUñMe in such case.

Affirmed.

Delaney, Commissioner.

Adopted.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Financial Officer,

As Adopted
Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, F. Clay Creasey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Toys R Us, Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended August 4, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|September 12, 2007                                                              
|                                                                                
|/s/ F. Clay Creasey, Jr.                                                        
|F. Clay Creasey, Jr.                                                            
|Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
PROCESS BLOCK DIAGRAM 

SANITIZED
#### NOWLIN VS. HUGHES ET AL.

Appeal from Grayson county.

*Practice*— Order *set Aside,*— After judgment a motion for a new trial was granted by the court though no order to that effect was entered on the minutes. At the same term the motion for new trial was reconsidered and an order made overruling the same, without notice to defendants. Held, that the orders, judgments and decrees of a court are under its control until the end of the term ; and that it was within the power of .the court to set aside the order granting a new trial. The action was valid although taken without actual notice to defendants. They were in court for all the purposes of the case until the end of the term.

Opinion by

Willson, J„