alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michael CALTA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Terry Gene BOLLEA, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2610

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
Bruce Douglas PACE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC17-1021

Supreme Court of Florida.

[January 30, 2018]

Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Bri Lacy, Staff Attorney, and Paul Kalil, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lisa A. Hopkins, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee

PER CURIAM.

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

Pace'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 Pace'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*, Pace responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why *Hitchcock* should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Pace's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Pace is not entitled to relief. Pace was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five. *See**Pace v. State*, 596 So.2d 1034, 1035 (Fla. 1992).1 His sentence of death became final in 1992. *Pace v. Florida*, 506 U.S. 885, 113 S.Ct. 244, 121 L.Ed.2d 178 (1992). Thus, *Hurst* does not apply retroactively to Pace's sentence of death. *See**Hitchcock*, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Pace's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Pace, 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, *914I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in *Hitchcock*.

1

While the jury's vote to recommend a sentence of death is not reflected in this Court's opinion on direct appeal, this Court's opinion addressing Pace's initial postconviction appeal and separate petition for a writ of habeas corpus states that the jury voted seven to five to recommend a sentence of death. *Pace v. State*, 854 So.2d 167, 170 (Fla. 2003).
SPK, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. BRANCH BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-4788

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Frank A. WALLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC17-959

Supreme Court of Florida.

[January 22, 2018]

James Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Maria E. DeLiberato, Julissa Fontán, and Chelsea Ray Shirley, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee

PER CURIAM.

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

Walls' 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 Walls' 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*, Walls responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why *Hitchcock* should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Walls' response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Walls is not entitled to relief. Walls was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death. *Walls v. State*, 641 So.2d 381, 386 (Fla. 1994). Walls' sentence of death became final in 1995. *Walls v. Florida*, 513 U.S. 1130, 115 S.Ct. 943, 130 L.Ed.2d 887 (1995). Thus, *Hurst* does not apply retroactively to Walls' sentence of death. *See**Hitchcock*, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Walls' motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Walls, 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*.
Deborah HOLLAND O/B/O Sean HOLLAND, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-5511

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 08, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          11,452
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,569
<ALLOWANCES>                                       569
<INVENTORY>                                     16,703
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,636
<PP&E>                                          42,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,961
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,001
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,652
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,961
<SALES>                                        139,578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               139,578
<CGS>                                          108,724
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  129,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    64
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 139
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,858
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,031
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,827
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,827
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
        

</TABLE>
Carl Ezekiel WOODS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-3679

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EX PARTE Tresvon Tyrone SPENCER

1151251 (CR-14-1673)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
EX PARTE Brandon Keith WILLIAMS

1151252 (CR-15-0179)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NPC International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 26, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James K. Schwartz, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer of NPC International, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 10, 2007



/s/ James K. SchwartzJames K. SchwartzPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Operating Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or

otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required

by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and

Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| SOUTH      PADRE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC                                  |   | COMPASS      BANK                |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|
| FORMERLY      KNOWN AS SOUTH PADRE ISLAND                                 |   |                             |
| DEVELOPMENT,      L.P.                                                    |   |                             |
|                                                                      |   |                             |
|                                                                      |   |                             |
| By: /s/ JUSTIN L. AWTREY                                                  |   | ________________________________ |
|       Justin      L. Awtrey, Vice President |   |                             |

| STATE      OF TEXAS | ' |
|---------------------|---|

| COUNTY      OF CAMERON | ' |
|------------------------|---|

| STATE      OF TEXAS | ' |
|---------------------|---|

| COUNTY      OF CAMERON | ' |
|------------------------|---|
EX PARTE M.D.M.

1160123 (CR-15-0790)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7483

SAMUEL C. HOLLOWAY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN JABE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-95-439-R)

Submitted: January 30, 1996 Decided: February 9, 1996

Before HALL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel C. Holloway, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order*

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have

reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable

cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

magistrate judge. Holloway v. Jabe, No. CA-95-439-R (E.D. Va. Aug.

30, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
STATE EX REL. Gene Ellis WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2016-KH-2130

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 23, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CLAIBORNE**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
STATE of Florida, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Mirza Rashid BEG, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-2799

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 16, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Writ of mandamus is denied.
Gary E. DOUGHTEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-1062

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 29, 2017. Rehearing Denied January 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.3



                        Independent Accountant's Report


          Synthetic Fixed-Income Securities, Inc. (as Depositor)
          One Wachovia Center
          301 South College Street, DC-7
          Charlotte, NC 28288

          U.S. Bank Trust National Association (as Trustee)
          Corporate Trust Department
          100 Wall Street
          New York, NY 10005


          Re:    STRATS Trust For DaimlerChrysler NA Holding Securities
                 ------------------------------------------------------
                 Series 2004-10 (the "Trust")
                 ----------------------------

          Ladies and Gentlemen:

          We have examined assertions of Synthetic Fixed-Income Securities,
          Inc. (the "Depositor") and U.S. Bank National Association, (the
          "Trustee" and Together with the Depositor, the "Management") that the
          Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material respects,
          with the provisions of the Base Trust Agreement dated as of September
          26, 2003, as supplemented by a series supplement dated as of August
          6, 2004 (together, the "Trust Agreement"), in respect of the STRATS
          Trust For DaimlerChrysler NA Holding Securities Series 2004-10 (the
          "Trust"), during the period covered by the annual report on Form 10-K
          filed by the Depositor on behalf of the Trust for the year ended
          December 31, 2004 (the "Annual Report"). Management is responsible
          for compliance with the Trust Agreement. Our responsibility is to
          express an opinion on Management's assertions based on our
          examination.

          Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards
          established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
          and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about
          the Depositor's and the Trustee's compliance with the Trust Agreement
          and performing such other procedures as considered necessary in the
          circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable
          basis for our opinion.

          In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all
          material respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period covered
          by the Annual Report and Management's assertions with respect to such
          compliance are fairly stated, in all material respects, for the year
          ended December 31, 2004.


          /s/ Aston Bell, CPA
          New York, New York
          March 22, 2005
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-161611 and 333-161615, and Form S-3 No. 333-168555) of CareFusion Corporation and in the related Prospectus of our reports dated August 9, 2011, with respectto the consolidated and combined financial statements and schedule of CareFusion Corporation, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of CareFusion Corporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended June 30, 2011. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

San Diego, California 

August 9, 2011
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF RESIGNATION No. 69682 

OF SARA J. VANCE, BAR NO. 5805. 

FILED 

FEB 1 9 2016 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RESIGNATION 

This is a joint petition by the State Bar of Nevada and 

attorney Sara J. Vance for her resignation from the Nevada bar. 

SCR 98(5) provides that Nevada attorneys who are not 

actively practicing law in this state may resign from the state bar if 

certain conditions are met. The petition includes statements from state 

bar staff confirming that no disciplinary, fee dispute arbitration, or client 

security fund matters are pending against Vance; and that she is current 

on all membership fee payments and other financial commitments relating 

to her practice of law in this state. See SCR 98(5)(a)(1)-(2). 

Bar counsel has recommended that the resignation be 

approved, and the Board of Governors has approved the application for 

resignation. See SCR 98(5)(a)(2). Vance acknowledges that her 

resignation is irrevocable and that the state bar retains continuing 

jurisdiction with respect to matters involving a past member's conduct 

prior to resignation. See SCR 98(5)(c)-(d). Finally, Vance has submitted 

an affidavit of compliance with SCR 115. See SCR 98(5)(e). 

O) 1947A e ko - b53eb 
a 

The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). 

Accordingly, we approve attorney Sara J. Vance's 

98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted. 

It is so ORDERED. 

resignation. SCR 

Parraguirre 

deu L62,4-ti 

Hardesty 

crpotA-c\ ais J. 

Douglas 

J. 

J. 

Gibbons 

Pek.„ , J. 

Pickering 

cc: Sara J. Vance 

C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Officer, U.S. Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e 

2
Dennis Lee TIPTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-2028

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 14, 2017 Rehearing Denied December 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# Uradni list C 32I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-1045 |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 032I |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Letnik 6429. januar 2021 |

ISSN 1977-1045

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 032I

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Letnik 6429. januar 2021

---

| Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informacije |
| | INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE |
| | Evropska komisija |
| 2021/C 32 I/01 | Povzetek sklepov Evropske unije o dovoljenjih za promet z zdravili z dne 29. januarja 2021(Objavljeno v skladu s členom 13 ali členom 38 Uredbe (ES) št. 726/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta) | 1 |

Vsebina

Stran

IV   Informacije

INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE

Evropska komisija

2021/C 32 I/01

Povzetek sklepov Evropske unije o dovoljenjih za promet z zdravili z dne 29. januarja 2021(Objavljeno v skladu s členom 13 ali členom 38 Uredbe (ES) št. 726/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta)

(Objavljeno v skladu s členom 13 ali členom 38 Uredbe (ES) št. 726/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta)

1

---

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

IV Informacije

INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE

Evropska komisija

| 29.1.2021 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | CI 32/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2021

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

CI 32/1

---

Povzetek sklepov Evropske unije o dovoljenjih za promet z zdravili z dne 29. januarja 2021

(Objavljeno v skladu s členom 13 ali členom 38 Uredbe (ES) št. 726/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (1))

(2021/C 32 I/01)

| — | Izdaja dovoljenja za promet (člen 13 Uredbe (ES) št. 726/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta): Odobrena













  Datum sprejetja sklepa | Ime zdravila | INN (mednarodno nelastniško ime) | Imetnik dovoljenja za promet | Registracijska številka v registru Skupnosti | Farmacevtska oblika | ATC (anatomsko terapevtska kemijska oznaka) | Datum obvestila |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 29.1.2021 | COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca | Cepivo proti COVID-19 (ChAdOx1-S [rekombinantno]) | AstraZeneca AB |
| 151 85 Södertälje, Sverige |

—

Izdaja dovoljenja za promet (člen 13 Uredbe (ES) št. 726/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta): Odobrena

Datum sprejetja sklepa

Ime zdravila

INN (mednarodno nelastniško ime)

Imetnik dovoljenja za promet

Registracijska številka v registru Skupnosti

Farmacevtska oblika

ATC (anatomsko terapevtska kemijska oznaka)

Datum obvestila

29.1.2021

COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca

Cepivo proti COVID-19 (ChAdOx1-S [rekombinantno])

AstraZeneca AB

151 85 Södertälje, Sverige

EU/1/21/1529

Suspenzija za injiciranje

J07BX03

29.1.2021

Kdor želi dobiti vpogled v javno poročilo o oceni zadevnih zdravil ter o zadevnih sklepih o zdravilih, se lahko obrne na naslov:

| European Medicines Agency |
| --- |
| Domenico Scarlattilaan 6 |
| 1083 HS Amsterdam |
| NETHERLANDS |

European Medicines Agency

Domenico Scarlattilaan 6

1083 HS Amsterdam

NETHERLANDS

---

(1)  UL L 136, 30.4.2004, str. 1.

---