alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed May 12, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-524

Lower Tribunal No. 20-9219

________________

Michael Ducote, et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

Riacho, LLC, etc.,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Lourdes Simon, Judge.

Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula and W. Aaron Daniel and 

William D. Mueller, for petitioners.

De La Peña Group, P.A., and Leoncio E. de la Peña D., Otto C. de 

Córdoba and Tracy Pérez, for respondent.

Before SCALES, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Petitioners Michael Ducote and Gulflet Properties, LLC seek certiorari 

review of a February 1, 2021 trial court order that overruled Petitioners’ 

objections to a non-party discovery subpoena. The subpoena was directed 

toward Petitioners’ former law firm, Adams & Reese, LLP (the “Law Firm”),

which also served as the escrow agent for a real estate transaction. 

After entry of both the challenged order and Petitioners’ February 15, 

2021 filing of the instant petition, the discovery subpoena was served on the 

Law Firm, and the Law Firm filed its own motion for protective order objecting 

to the subpoena. Just as Petitioners had argued in their objections, the Law 

Firm’s motion asserted that several of the sought documents were 

privileged. 

On March 11, 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing on the Law 

Firm’s objections and entered a March 12, 2021 order that grants in part the 

Law Firm’s motion for protective order (the “March 12th Order”). In relevant 

part, the March 12th Order requires Petitioners to review the sought 

documents with the Law Firm and prepare a privilege log pursuant to Florida 

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6). The March 12th Order also requires

Petitioners to produce to respondent Riacho, LLC all documents for which 

no privilege is claimed. As to the documents for which a privilege is claimed, 

the March 12th Order provides that the trial court will conduct “an evidentiary 
3

hearing and conduct an in camera review where necessary, prior to 

production of such documents.”

Neither party has challenged the March 12th Order, which appears to 

assuage the concerns raised in Petitioners’ petition. We therefore exercise 

our discretion not to reach the merits of the petition and, instead, dismiss the 

petition as having been mooted by the trial court’s entry of the March 12th 

Order. 

Petition dismissed as moot.
No. 10-5642.

#### In re Nyka O’Connor, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 825, 131 S. Ct. 331,

178 L. Ed. 2d 257,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7771.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
AECC Bailey and McClellan- SO2 and PM BART

Dayana Medina to: pettyjohn 12/13/2012 04:15 PM

Cc: Guy Donaldson, Michael Feldman

From: Dayana Medina/R6/USEPA/US

To: pettyjohn@adeq.state.ar.us

Cc: Guy Donaldson/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Feldman/R6/USEPA/US@EPA

Hi Mary, 

As we discussed over the phone earlier this week, here is Region 6's feedback on the draft revised SO2 

and PM BART analysis for the AECC Bailey and McClellan plants. For your reference, I also attached a 

copy of the APCEC Minute Order that granted BART sources in Arkansas a variance from the BART 

compliance deadline imposed by APCEC Reg. 19, Chapter 15. Please let me know if you have any 

further questions. Thank you!

 

Best Regards, 

Dayana Medina

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division 

Air Planning Section (6PD-L)

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, TX 75202

214-665-7241

medina.dayana@epa.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         288,859
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,240,412
<ALLOWANCES>                                    28,571
<INVENTORY>                                  1,064,996
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,413,079
<PP&E>                                       4,836,296
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,956,251
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,776,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,000,510
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,776,126
<SALES>                                      8,632,261
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,632,261
<CGS>                                        6,645,599
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  835,622
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             216,017
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                935,023
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (374,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            561,023
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   561,023
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42


</TABLE>
NAIMA and EPA Meeting

August 31, 2011

2 :00 P M

– 4 : 0 0 PM

NAIMA Participa n t s

1. Steve Aldridge

– Knauf Insulation

2. Lauren Alterman

– CertainTeed Corporation

3. Brian Baker

– Knauf Insulation

4. Ken Gould

– Owens Corning

5. Ron Hudson

– Johns Manville

6. Mike Metz

– Guard ian Fiberglass

7. Mike Pettis

– Owens Corning

8. Grover Thomas

– Guardian Fiberglass

9. Brent Tracy

– Johns Manville

10. Angus Crane

– NAIMA

11. Christopher Martin

– NAIMA
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          14,824,000
<SECURITIES>                                    23,582,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,420,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (6,797,000)
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,983,000
<PP&E>                                          85,328,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (7,228,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 238,849,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,489,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           254,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     164,077,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   238,849,000
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,139,000
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,524,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                51,270,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,569,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (61,487,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       839,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (62,326,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (62,326,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (2.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (2.85)


</TABLE>
# C_2014052EN.01005304.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/53

---

Action brought on 17 December 2013 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-122/13)

2014/C 52/105

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J. Kempeners and M. Itani, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of Europol not to renew the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period and for an order against Europol for the payment of the difference between the remuneration which he would have continued to receive at Europol and any other allowances which he has in fact received.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the decision taken by Europol on 6 May 2013 by which Europol informed the applicant that it would not renew his fixed-term contract which expired on 31 October 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the decision taken by Europol on 6 May 2013 by which Europol informed the applicant that it would not renew his fixed-term contract which expired on 31 October 2013;

| — | order Europol to pay the applicant the difference between, first, the amount of the remuneration which he would have earned if he had continued to be employed by Europol and, second, the amount of the remuneration, fees, unemployment benefit or any other allowance in lieu which he has in fact received since 1 October 2013 in place of the remuneration which he was receiving at Europol; |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the applicant the difference between, first, the amount of the remuneration which he would have earned if he had continued to be employed by Europol and, second, the amount of the remuneration, fees, unemployment benefit or any other allowance in lieu which he has in fact received since 1 October 2013 in place of the remuneration which he was receiving at Europol;

| — | order Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the costs.

---
No. 09-1528.

#### Shareff Rudd, Petitioner v. Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 838, 131 S. Ct. 187,

178 L. Ed. 2d 42,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5768.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# NYTS_2013_FORMATS

||
||
No. 10-6629.

#### Jamont DuBose, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1016, 131 S. Ct. 536,

178 L. Ed. 2d 394,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8456.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Same case below, 579 F.3d 117.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
RAYMOND JUAREZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 16145

D.C. Nos. 2:16

- cv
- 01376

- JCM 2:11

- cr
- 00091

- JCM

- CWH

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Juarez appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate , set aside, or correct his sentence . We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Hill , 915 F.3d 669, 673 (9th Cir. 2019) , we affirm.

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

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAR 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 16145

Juarez contends that his conviction and sentence for violating 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) must be vacated because Hobbs Act robbery based on an aiding and
abetting theory of liability is not a qualifying predicate crime of violence. We need
not address this argument because w e agree with the government that Jua rez’s
§ 2255 motion is barred by the collateral attack waiver in his plea agreement.

Juarez contends that the waiver is not enforceable because his challenge to his
§ 924(c) conviction and sentence falls within the illegal sentence exception
recognized in United States v. Torres , 828 F.3d 1113, 1125 (9th Cir. 2016).

However, t his exception does not apply where, as in this case, the contention is that

the conviction is illegal

. See United States v. Goodall , 21 F.4th 555, 562

- 65 (9th
Cir. 2021) ( holding that the illegal sentence exception to appellate waivers does not
apply to challenges to illegal convictions ). Because the collateral attack waiver

forecloses § 2255 relief

, we affirm the denial of J uarez’s motion. S ee White v.

Klitzkie , 281 F.3d 920, 922 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e can affirm the district court on
any ground supported by the record.”)

.
We treat Juarez ’s additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate
of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22

- 1(e); Hiivala

v. Wood , 195 F.3d 1098, 1104

- 05 (9th Cir. 1999)

.
AFFIRMED.
# DSCC MWR’s Operation Cookie Drop gives Ohio military a big thank you for Military Appreciation Month

/ Published May 11, 2022
COLUMBUS, OH, 
In honor of Military Appreciation Month, the Defense Supply Center Columbus Morale, Welfare and Recreation’s annual Operation Cookie Drop distributes hundreds of cases of Girl Scout cookies donated by the Girl Scouts of Ohio's Heartland each May. This year, the Girl Scouts and DSCC MWR distributed 1300 cases of cookies to about 5,600 service members from 32 units (large and small) throughout Ohio.

The cookies were gathered by individual Girl Scouts and Girl Scout troops as part of their Operation Salute initiative to give back to military members across the state.

The units receiving cookies were from the DSCC Installation, the Columbus area, Dayton, Newark, Sharonville, Milan, Canton, Maineville and Middletown, Ohio and are from the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve and Ohio National Guard.

The event was held at MWR’s Outdoor Rental Center in Building 27 May 6 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

DSCC MWR Family Services Program Manager Michiel DeVito said that the program now in its eighth year, is held each May because its Military Appreciation Month.

“It’s an opportunity to let our military from across the state know how very much, not only the Girl Scouts, not only MWR but our country appreciates their service and their dedication,” DeVito said.

Army Reserve Command Sgt. Maj. Denver Stone of the 633rd Quartermaster Battalion out of Sharonville, Ohio ‘coined’ the team from Girl Scouts of Ohio’s Heartland with a 633rd Command Coin for the donation of the cookies to his troops as well as their dedication to bring joy to thousands of military families. 

“The Girl Scouts are out here and they’ve donated all this for my soldiers and it’s just my way of saying thank you from the commander and myself of the 633rd. Maybe it’s something they can have that’s tangible to hold and look at and show that it meant something to us.”

The Girl Scouts and MWR staff provided service with a smile as they quickly and efficiently stuffed vans, cars, pick-up trucks and even a Humvee with cookies.  

The units who picked up cookies at the event will further distribute them to individual service members and their families. Girl Scouts distributed all the main varieties of cookies everyone has come to love like Do-Si-Dos, Trefoils, Samoas, Thin Mints, Lemon Ups and Tag-A-Longs.

“I can’t say enough about the support and the actual pleasure that I get from helping soldiers and working with the MWR people,” Stone said.

#### **Watch a video from the event**
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-116637, 333-107795, 333-98545, 333-34522,333-50605, 333-59075, 333-59077 and 333-59079) of American Dental Partners, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 11, 2005
EXHIBIT 23.1
 
 
 
 
 Consent of Independent Accountants
 
 We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of The Eastern Company for the year ended January 1, 2011 of our reports dated March 11, 2011 included in its Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-21349, 333-21351, 333-45315, 333-62196, 333-115109 and 333-169169) relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules and internal controls for the two years ended January 1, 2011 listed in the accompanying index.
 
 
 
 /s/ Fiondella, Milone & LaSaracina LLP
 
 Glastonbury, Connecticut
 March 11, 2011
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2695 

To rename the Success Dam in Tulare County, California, as the Richard 

L. Schafer Dam. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2019 

Mr. MCCARTHY (for himself and Mr. NUNES) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To rename the Success Dam in Tulare County, California, 

as the Richard L. Schafer Dam. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RENAMING OF DAM. 

4 (a) RENAMING.—The Success Dam in Tulare Coun5 ty, California, shall hereafter be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘Richard L. Schafer Dam’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regula8 tion, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the dam referred to in subsection (a) shall be 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2695 IH

1 considered to be a reference to the Richard L. Schafer 

2 Dam. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2014448EN.01002301.xml

| 15.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 448/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/23

---

Order of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Khatzithoma v Commission and ECB

(Case T-329/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Cyprus stability support programme - Declaration of the Eurogroup concerning the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus - Erroneous identification of the defendant in the application - Inadmissibility))

(2014/C 448/30)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Petros Khatzithoma (Makedonitissa, Cyprus); and Elenitsa Khatzithoma (Makedonitissa) (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, acting as Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the declaration of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013 concerning, inter alia, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Petros Khatzithoma and Elenitsa Khatzithoma are ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Petros Khatzithoma and Elenitsa Khatzithoma are ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

1

---
No. 10-6138.

#### John Arthur Harris, Jr., Petitioner v. Michigan.

562 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 518,

178 L. Ed. 2d 383,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8623,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2624 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2624

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation 
              on the deduction for State and local taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2019

Ms. Sherrill (for herself, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Cisneros, and Mr. King of 
  New York) 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 increase the limitation 
              on the deduction for State and local taxes.

    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 ``SALT Relief and Marriage Penalty 
Elimination Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Section 164(b)(6)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``$10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a 
married individual filing a separate return)'' and inserting ``an 
amount equal to the basic standard deduction in effect with respect to 
the taxpayer for the taxable year under paragraph (2) of section 63(c) 
(determined after the application of paragraph (7) and without regard 
to paragraphs (5) and (6) of such section)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terry D. Gannon, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 850]

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Austin, J.), rendered November 21, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree.

On November 21, 2001, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of sexual abuse in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to a prison term of five years. Defense counsel seeks to be relieved from his assignment as counsel for defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Initially, we note that the People have informed this Court that defendant was resentenced on August 12, 2003 to a prison term of five years with three years of postrelease supervision. In view of the resentencing, the initial sentence has been superceded and any issue with respect to sentencing on this appeal is now moot. In the event that defendant files a timely appeal from the resentence, the plea proceeding may be reviewed by this Court inasmuch as defendant filed an appeal from the initial judgment of conviction *(see*CPL 450.30 [3]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot.