alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Anton J. KRAWCZUK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC17-1142

Supreme Court of Florida.

[January 31, 2018]

Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Todd G. Scher and Scott Gavin, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Stephen D. Ake, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee

PER CURIAM.

*916We have for review Anton J. Krawczuk's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Krawczuk's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. *See* art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Krawczuk's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in *Hurst v. Florida*, --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in *Hurst v. State* (*Hurst* ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Krawczuk's appeal pending the disposition of *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided *Hitchcock*, Krawczuk responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why *Hitchcock* should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Krawczuk's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Krawczuk is not entitled to relief. Krawczuk was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death. *Krawczuk v. State*, 634 So.2d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 1994). Krawczuk's sentence of death became final in 1994. *Krawczuk v. Florida*, 513 U.S. 881, 115 S.Ct. 216, 130 L.Ed.2d 143 (1994). Thus, *Hurst* does not apply retroactively to Krawczuk's sentence of death. *See**Hitchcock*, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Krawczuk's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Krawczuk, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

QUINCE, J., recused.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court's opinion in *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in *Hitchcock*.
Anthony LAMARCA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC17-1179

Supreme Court of Florida.

[January 30, 2018]

Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida; James Vincent Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Ali A. Shakoor, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Scott A. Browne, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Anthony Lamarca's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Lamarca's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. *See* art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Lamarca's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in *Hurst v. Florida*, --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in *Hurst v. State* (*Hurst* ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Lamarca's appeal pending the disposition of *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided *Hitchcock*, Lamarca responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why *Hitchcock* should not be dispositive in this case.

*915After reviewing Lamarca's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Lamarca is not entitled to relief. Lamarca was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. *LaMarca v. State*, 785 So.2d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 2001). Lamarca's sentence of death became final in 2001. *LaMarca v. Florida*, 534 U.S. 925, 122 S.Ct. 281, 151 L.Ed.2d 207 (2001). Thus, *Hurst* does not apply retroactively to Lamarca's sentence of death. *See**Hitchcock*, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Lamarca's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lamarca, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court's opinion in *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in *Hitchcock*.
Kenneth HODGES, Appellant, v. PIPE RITE FIRE SPRINKLERS, Appellee.

No. 1D17-140

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28384]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 03/73-0239]

Core Capital Partners II-S, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under 
Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Core Capital Partners II-S, L.P., 1717 
K Street NW, Suite 920, Washington, DC 20006, a Federal Licensee under 
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the Act''), in 
connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an 
exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings 
which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Core 
Capital Partners II-S, L.P. proposes to manage assets it sold to a 
third-party acquirer and held in a newly formed Special Purpose Vehicle 
(``SPV'') as the General Partner of SPV.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a) and 
(e) of the Regulations because SPV, an Associate of Core Capital 
Partners II-S, L.P., owns more than ten percent of the same assets held 
by Core Capital Partners II-S, LP, and therefore this transaction is 
considered a financing in which an Associate is used to manage 
Portfolio Concerns.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of 
this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. 
Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 
20416.

    Dated: December 13, 2017.
A. Joseph Shepard,
Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2017-28384 Filed 1-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1040 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit smoking on the premises 

of any facility of the Veterans Health Administration, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. CARPER, Mr. BROWN, Ms. 

HIRONO, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. REED, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL, and Mr. KAINE) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit smoking 

on the premises of any facility of the Veterans Health 

Administration, 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. PROHIBITION ON SMOKING IN FACILITIES OF 

4 THE VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1715 of title 38, 

7 United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 1040 IS

1 ‘‘§ 1715. Prohibition on smoking in facilities of the 

2 Veterans Health Administration 

3 ‘‘(a) PROHIBITION.—No person (including any vet4 eran, patient, resident, employee of the Department, con5 tractor, or visitor) may smoke on the premises of any facil6 ity of the Veterans Health Administration. 

7 ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

8 ‘‘(1) The term ‘facility of the Veterans Health 

9 Administration’ means any land or building (includ10 ing any medical center, nursing home, domiciliary 

11 facility, outpatient clinic, or center that provides re12 adjustment counseling) that is— 

13 ‘‘(A) under the jurisdiction of the Depart14 ment of Veterans Affairs; 

15 ‘‘(B) under the control of the Veterans 

16 Health Administration; and 

17 ‘‘(C) not under the control of the General 

18 Services Administration. 

19 ‘‘(2) The term ‘smoke’ includes— 

20 ‘‘(A) the use of cigarettes, cigars, pipes, 

21 and any other combustion or heating of to22 bacco; and 

23 ‘‘(B) the use of any electronic nicotine de24 livery system, including electronic or e-ciga25 rettes, vape pens, and e-cigars.’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 1040 IS

1 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec2 tions at the beginning of subchapter II of chapter 17 

3 of such title is amended by striking the item relating 

4 to section 1715 and inserting the following new 

5 item: 

‘‘1715. Prohibition on smoking in facilities of the Veterans Health Administration.’’. 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 526 of the 

7 Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–585; 

8 38 U.S.C. 1715 note) is repealed. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service 

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Kootenai National Forest's Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday, April 8, 2009 at 6 p.m. at the Forest Supervisor's Office in Libby, Montana for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public. 

# DATES:

April 8, 2009. 

# ADDRESSES:

Forest Supervisor's Office, 31374 US Hwy 2, Libby, Montana. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Willie Sykes, Committee Coordinator, Kootenai National Forest at (406) 283-7694, or e-mail                         *wsykes@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Agenda will include a consideration of 2009 project proposals from the Rexford Ranger District and the Fortine Ranger District and receiving public comment. If the meeting date or location is                           ( print page 15695)                        changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Daily Interlake based in Kalispell, Montana.                 

Dated: March 27, 2009. 

Paul Bradford, 

Forest Supervisor. 

 [FR Doc. E9-7604 Filed 4-6-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Document

EXHIBIT 10.33

FOURTH AMENDMENT
TO THE
CATERPILLAR INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
Effective as of January 1, 2005, Caterpillar Inc. (the “Company”) established the Caterpillar Inc. Supplemental Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”).  By a document dated May 9, 2017, the Plan was most recently amended and restated effective May 15, 2017.  Pursuant to Article IX of the Plan, the Company has reserved the right to amend the Plan in whole or in part, at any time.  By this instrument, the Company amends the Plan to reflect overpayment recovery changes.
1.This Fourth Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2022.
2.Section 10.11 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“10.11       Overpayments.  If it is determined that the benefits under the Plan should not have been paid or should have been paid in a lesser amount, the Plan has the right at any time to, as elected by the Plan Administrator: (i) recover the overpayment from the recipient to whom it was made; (ii) offset the amount of that overpayment from a future payment to the recipient; or (iii) a combination of (i) and (ii).  The Plan Administrator or the Company may also take all actions permissible under law and applicable guidance to recover for the Plan the amount of the overpayment.”
3.This Fourth Amendment amends only the provisions of the Plan as set forth herein, and those provisions not expressly amended shall be considered in full force and effect.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Fourth Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions and the intent of this Fourth Amendment.


			
	








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Fourth Amendment to be executed as of December 15, 2021.


												
	CATERPILLAR INC.
	
	  /s/ Cheryl H. Johnson
	
	Cheryl H. Johnson
	Chief Human Resources Officer




			
	



2
Jimmy Lee WHEELER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-824

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Alvin ALICEA, DC# Y25973, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-4832

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 11, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
|   | (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 results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  November      12, 2009 | /s/ Richard B. Stern         |
|------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                                     | Richard      B. Stern        |
|                                     | Chief      Executive Officer |

----
Jasman Early SHIPLEY v. STATE

CR-15-0869

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Document

Exhibit 10.10


AGREEMENT NUMBER: 2015003
ADDENDUM #9


QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE AGREEMENT


made between


OMEGA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY


(hereinafter referred to as the "Reinsured")


and


WYNDHAM INSURANCE COMPANY (SAC) LIMITED,


in respect of its Segregated Account AX (hereinafter referred to as the "Reinsurer")


WHEREAS the Reinsured and the Reinsurer entered into a Quota Share Reinsurance Agreement effective January 1, 2015 (the "Agreement");


WHEREAS the Agreement has been amended eight times previously.


AND WHEREAS the Reinsured and the Reinsurer now desire to further amend the Quota Share Reinsurance Agreement. This Addendum #9 to the Agreement (the "Amendment") will take effect as of January 1, 2022.


In consideration of the covenants and agreements contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
Amendment of Article 8
Effective January l, 2022, Article 8 of the Quota Share Reinsurance Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following shall be substituted in its place:


ARTICLE 8 CEDING COMMISSION
The Reinsurer will allow the Reinsured a "Ceding Commission" equal to the sum of:


A. 100% of the commission charged by the producing Broker, plus;
B. 4.00% of gross premium on the subject Business, representing reimbursement for premium taxes, plus;
C. $2,000,000 for the calendar year ended December 31, 2022, representing the Reinsured's "Fronting Fee".
The Ceding Commission shall be calculated and paid monthly, and shall include a monthly amount of $166,666.67 for the Fronting Fee component of the Ceding Commission.
The Fronting Fee component of the Ceding Commission is intended to represent a flat amount of $200,000 plus approximately 1.25% of gross premium on the estimated volume of subject Business. The Fronting Fee component of the Ceding Commission will be renegotiated annually, no later than 90 days prior to the calendar year end, or any time during the year when projected gross premiums on the subject Business vary by 15% from the estimated volume of subject Business.








Counterparts
This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.


Ratification of Agreement
Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified by the Parties.




SIGNED this 3rd day of December, 2021; 
For the Reinsured, OMEGA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY


			
	
	/s/ Matthew P. Cook


By: Matthew P. Cook, President + CEO 




SIGNED this 3rd day of December, 2021; 
For the Reinsurer, WYNDHAM INSURANCE COMPANY (SAC) LIMITED, in respect of its segregated account AX


			
	
	/s/ Jeffrey DeSilva


By: Jeffrey DeSilva, Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                APR-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               550
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      7,244
<ALLOWANCES>                                         137
<INVENTORY>                                       12,228
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  20,345
<PP&E>                                            12,176
<DEPRECIATION>                                     4,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    31,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              7,818
<BONDS>                                                0
<COMMON>                                               9
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        17,477
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      31,416
<SALES>                                           43,308
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  43,308
<CGS>                                             33,277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     40,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   457
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    2,330
<INCOME-TAX>                                         919
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                1,411
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       1,411
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .16
        


</TABLE>
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

-- Page 1

(Electronic Format)

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

District: Yolo-Solano AQMD

Rule No(s): 3.24 Date adopted/Amended/Rescinded: June 13, 2012

Rule Title(s): Prevention of Significant Deteriora tion

Date Submitted to ARB: 6/20/2012

If an Amended Rule, Date Last Amended (or Adopted):

Is the Rule Intended to be Sent to the U.S. EPA as a SIP Revision? Yes No ( If No, do not complete remainder of form)

District Contact: Paul Hensleigh Phone Number: ( 530) 757-3665 E-mail Address: phensleigh@ysaqmd.o rg

Narrative Summary of New Rule or Rule Changes: New Rule Amended Rule

Adopted Rule 3.24 to allow the District to administ er the PSD permitting program for our jurisdiction.

Pollutant(s) Regulated by the Rule (Check): ROG (NOx) SO2

(CO) PM TAC (name):

II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS

Complete this section ONLY for rules that, when imp lemented, will result in quantifiable changes in em issions. Attach reference(s) for emission factor(s )

and other information. Attach calculation sheet sh owing how the emission information provided below w as determined

.

Net Effect on Emissions: Increase Decrease N/A

Emission Reduction Commitment in SIP for this Sourc e Category:

Inventory Year Used to Calculate Changes in Emissio ns: Area Affected:

Future Year Control Profile Estimate (Provide information on as many years as possible) :CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

-- Page 2

(Electronic Format)

Baseline Inventory in the SIP for the Control Measu re:

Emissions Reduction Commitment in the SIP for the C ontrol Measure:

Revised Baseline Inventory (if any):

Revised Emission Reduction Estimate (if developed):

Note that the district’s input to the Rule Evaluati on Form will not be used as input to the ARB’s emis sion forecasting and

planning.

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS

District is: Attainment Nonattainment Split

Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 TPY) Source s Affected by this Amendment: 0

Percent in Nonattainment Area: %

Number of Large (> 100 TPY) Sources Controlled: 0 Percent in Nonattainment Area: %

Name(s) and Location(s) (city and county) of Large (> 100 TPY) Sources Controlled by Rule (Attach additional sheets as

necessary) :

IV. EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Does the Rule Include Emission Limits that are Cont inuous? Yes No

If Yes, Those Limits are in Section(s) of th e Rule.

Other Methods in the Rule for Achieving Emission Re ductions are:

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

The Rule Contains:

Emission Limits in Section(s): Work Pract ice Standards in Section(s):

Recordkeeping Requirements in Section(s): R eporting Requirements in Section(s):CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

-- Page 3

(Electronic Format)

5/1/2002 3

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN

No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts attainment

Discussion: The Rule is not expected to result in any reductions - the District will be the administr ator of the Federal PSD

program, instead of EPA, Region 9.