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

Case Nos. 2D17-2258

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 23, 2018.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

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

SLEET, Judge.

T.A. challenges the trial court's juvenile disposition order in which the court found him guilty of committing the delinquent act of burglary of an occupied dwelling, withheld adjudication, and placed him on probation. However, neither the disposition order nor the court's oral pronouncement specifies the length of the probationary term imposed.

*899Because adjudication was withheld, the trial court could impose probation for an indefinite period not to exceed T.A.'s nineteenth birthday. *See* *R.F. v. State*, 42 So.3d 333, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). But "[i]t is not clear from the record whether the trial court intended to place [T.A.] on an indefinite period of probation or whether it was an oversight that the length of probation was not specified." *See* *K.A. v. State*, 152 So.3d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). We therefore reverse the disposition order to the extent that it failed to set the length of T.A.'s probation and remand for a determination of the duration of probation. *See* *id.* We affirm the disposition order in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CASANUEVA and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Thomas GERLACH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-227

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Otisha THORNTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1896

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Reginald D. Reece

No. 06-15-00093-CR

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Opinion delivered by *Justice Carter and 

Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley, 

participating. *Sitting by Assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the 

relief sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED JUNE 4, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2629 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2629

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on (R,S)-2-((2,6-
    dimethylphenyl)methoxyacetylamino) propionic acid, methyl ester.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2012

 Mr. Nelson of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on (R,S)-2-((2,6-
    dimethylphenyl)methoxyacetylamino) propionic acid, methyl ester.

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

SECTION 1. (R,S)-2-((2,6-DIMETHYLPHENYL) METHOXYACETYLAMINO) PROPIONIC 
              ACID, METHYL ESTER.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.58 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to (R,S)-2-((2,6-
dimethylphenyl)methoxyacetylamino) propionic acid, methyl ester) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``Free'' in the column 1 general rate of 
        duty column and inserting ``3.6%''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10Q FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,228,640
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,228,640
<PP&E>                                      97,482,242
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,921,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              86,777,523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          916,892
<BONDS>                                     39,193,315
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  42,851,036
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                86,777,523
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,062,019
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,757,880
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,818,202
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,303,751
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,303,751
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,303,751
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   104.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Jerrod Len BOOTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Terry STEWART, sued in his individual & official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-15362.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*757Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 19, 2004.

Jerrod Len Booth, Florence, AZ, pro se.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Jerrod Booth, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment sua sponte dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the officers of the Arizona Department of Corrections misclassified his security status. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs action because administrative transfers of prisoners are well within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence and do not infringe on any liberty interest protected by the due process clause. *See Lucero v. Russell,*741 F.2d 1129, 1129-30 (9th Cir.1984). Thus, the district court properly dismissed this case for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. *See id.*§§ 1915A(a), (b)(1), (b)(2).

Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, because Plaintiff did not present newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or show that the district court committed clear error. *See School Disk No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 17546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8594]


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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


Meetings of Humanities Panel

AGENCY: The National Endowment for the Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of additional meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given that the 
following meeting of Humanities Panels will be held at the Old Post 
Office, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael P. McDonald, Advisory 
Committee Management Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities, 
Washington, DC 20506; telephone (202) 606-8322. Hearing-impaired 
individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained 
by contacting the Endowment's TDD terminal on (202) 606-8282.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed meeting is for the purpose of 
panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications 
for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and 
the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of 
information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. 
Because the proposed meeting will consider information that is likely 
to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information 
obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or 
information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant 
to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to 
Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have 
determined that this meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to 
subsections (c)(4), and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States 
Code.
    1. Date: May 28, 2009.
     Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
     Room: 402.
     Program: This meeting will review applications for JISC/NEH 
Transatlantic Digitization Collaboration Grants, submitted to the 
Division of Preservation and Access, at the March 26, 2009 deadline.

Michael P. McDonald,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E9-8594 Filed 4-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
Document

Exhibit 10.25

Match Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
Non-Employee Director Compensation Program


Each non-employee member of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) receives an annual retainer fee of $50,000 and the Chairperson of each of the Audit, Compensation and Human Resources, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees of the Board receives an additional annual retainer fee of $20,000, $20,000 and $15,000, respectively.  Members of the Audit, Compensation and Human Resources, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees (including the Chairpersons) each receive an additional annual retainer fee of $10,000, $5,000 and $5,000, respectively.  The Chairperson of the Board receives an additional annual retainer fee of $80,000.  All amounts are payable quarterly in arrears.


In addition, each non-employee director receives a grant of restricted stock units of the Company with a dollar value of $250,000 (based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the grant date), upon their initial election or appointment to the Board and annually thereafter on the date of the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders (unless such non-employee director does not serve as a director of the Company following such annual meeting of stockholders).  The terms of these restricted stock units provide for: (i) vesting in full on the first anniversary of the grant date, (ii) cancellation and forfeiture of unvested units in their entirety upon termination of service to the Company and its subsidiaries and (iii) full acceleration of vesting upon a change in control of the Company.


Each non-employee director is eligible to participate in the 2020 Match Group, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, in accordance with the terms of such plan.


Each non-employee director will also be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred by such director in connection with attendance at board and committee meetings.
Sidney MARCHAND and Christy Marchand v. Dr. Lura L. WIGHT

NO. 2018-CC-0472

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
D.M.M., the child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1499

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 23

- 00866

- CR Guillermo GARIBALDO , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 144th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023CR4384 Honorable Michael E. Mery , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Delivered and Filed: November 22, 2023
DISMISSED On September 20, 2023, appellant Guillermo Garibaldo filed a “Notice of Appeal

Negotiated Plea.” After Garibaldo filed his notice of appeal, the district cle rk filed a copy of the clerk’s record showing Garibaldo entered into a written plea bargain agreement with the State pursuant to which he pled nolo contendere to family violence assault by strangulation. The clerk’s record further shows the trial court im posed a sentence in accordance with the agreement and signed a certification stating this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and “the defendant has waived the right to appeal.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2).04

- 23

- 00866

- CR

- 2

- “In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal; or (C) where the specific appeal is expressly authori zed by statute.” Id

. We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. R. 25.2(d). Here, the clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by Garibaldo

. It also does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate the trial court gave Garibaldo permission to appeal. Thus, the reco rd supports the trial court’s certification this is a plea

- bargain case and Garibaldo does not have a right to appeal. See id. R. 25.2; Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding court of appeals should review clerk ’ s record to determi ne whether trial court ’ s certification is accurate)

. On October 2, 2023, we ordered Garibaldo to file a response establishing an amended certification showing he has the right to appeal has been made part of the appellate record. We cautioned Garibaldo failure to satisfactorily respond to this order within the time provided would result in the dismissal of this appeal. Garibaldo did not file a response by the ordered date. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM Do Not Publish
Curtis L. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1913

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 14, 2018 Rehearing Denied March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 129 

To ensure due process protections of individuals in the United States against 

unlawful detention based solely on a protected characteristic. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2023 

Ms. DUCKWORTH (for herself, Ms. HIRONO, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. BOOKER, 

Mr. MARKEY, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. WARREN, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. PADILLA, Mr. COONS, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. SMITH, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. REED, Ms. 

BALDWIN, Mr. CASEY, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. WELCH, and Mr. KAINE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To ensure due process protections of individuals in the 

United States against unlawful detention based solely 

on a protected characteristic. 

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 ‘‘Korematsu-Takai Civil 

5 Liberties Protection Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 129 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST UNLAWFUL DETENTION. 

2 Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, is 

3 amended— 

4 (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub5 section (c); and 

6 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(b) PROHIBITION ON DETENTION BASED ON PRO9 TECTED CHARACTERISTICS.— 

10 ‘‘(1) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term 

11 ‘protected characteristic’ includes each of the fol12 lowing: 

13 ‘‘(A) Race. 

14 ‘‘(B) Ethnicity. 

15 ‘‘(C) National origin. 

16 ‘‘(D) Religion. 

17 ‘‘(E) Sex. 

18 ‘‘(F) Gender identity. 

19 ‘‘(G) Sexual orientation. 

20 ‘‘(H) Disability. 

21 ‘‘(I) Any additional characteristic that the 

22 Attorney General determines to be a protected 

23 characteristic. 

24 ‘‘(2) PROHIBITION.—No individual may be im25 prisoned or otherwise detained based solely on an acVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:20 Feb 06, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S129.IS S129

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 129 IS

1 tual or perceived protected characteristic of the indi2 vidual. 

3 ‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 

4 this subsection shall be construed to allow the Attor5 ney General to remove a characteristic described in 

6 subparagraphs (A) through (H) of paragraph (1).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Southern Heritage Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, StevenW. Ledbetter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Steven W. Ledbetter            |   |
|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Steven W. Ledbetter                |
|   | Chief Financial Officer            |
|   | Southern Heritage Bancshares, Inc. |
|   | April 13, 2005                |

 

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129373 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. RUTH ALDRICH, Pers onal Representative Stephen J. Markman, of the Estate of Steven Aldrich, Deceased, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128373 COA: 262761 Midland CC: 03-006551-NH MID-MICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTER MIDLAND, Defendant,

and

ROBERT GENOVESE, M.D., and RODNEY DIEHL, M.D., Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e July 19, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.

10123 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 30, 2006

Clerk
Jasmine Shanay WATTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3081

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Dabney YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3003

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2514 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2514

           To suspend temporarily the duty on orthotoluidine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2012

  Mr. Harkin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on orthotoluidine.

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

SECTION 1. ORTHOTOLUIDINE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Orthotoluidine      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        (CAS No. 95-53-4)                                                  31/2015.......
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        2921.43.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the quarterly filing of Golden Chief Resources, Inc., a
Kansas corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended
December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, M. H. McIlvain, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350),
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.

October 13, 2006

By: /s/ M. H. McIlvain
---------------------
M. H. McIlvain
President and Chief Financial Officer