alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20055 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. PAULETTE DAVIS Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-240
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Paulette Davis pleaded guilty to making false entries and reports of moneys or securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2073. She was sentenced to two years ofprobation. As a special condition of her supervision while on probation, Davis was ordered to “participate in a mental health program as deemed necessary and approved by the probation officer.” Davis appeals, arguing that the districtjudge unlawfully and unconstitutionally delegated his statutory and Article III authority to determine sentencing conditions toa non-judicial officer. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 12, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-20055

2 Bec ause Davis did not object at sentencing, this court reviews for plain error only. To show plain error, Davis must show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects her substantial rights. U nited Statesv. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir. 2008). If she makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. Davis cites primarily United States v. Albro, 32 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 1994), to support her position that the district judge plainly erred by delegating his
authority to determine special conditions of release to a probation officer. In that case, Albro was convicted of bank fraud and ordered to pay restitution. Although the district judge himself determined the amount to be paid, he delegated the “manner ofpayment” toa probation officer. We agreed with Albro that “‘the amounts to be paid and the manner of payment should be recited in the [sentencing] order, rather than delegating these details to the probation officer.’” Id. at 174 (citations omitted). We found plain error and reversed. In United States v. Warden, this court held that it was not plain error to
allow a probation officer to determine a defendant’s ability to pay for drug treatment; Albro concerned “restitution payments,” this court wrote, not the costs ofdrug treatment. 291 F.3d 363, 365-66 (5th Cir. 2002). In U nited States
v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849, 852 n.3 (5th Cir. 2003), this court determined that it was not plain error to allow a probation officer to determine the length of a defendant’s drug treatment. In light ofour opinions in Warden and Vega, there could be no plain error here because our precedents do not plainly require the result Davis urges. Accordingly, Davis’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 8, 1997)]
[Corrections]
[Page 16892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X97-20408]



Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / 
Corrections

[[Page 16892]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 022497B]


Endangered Species; Permits

Correction

    In notice document 97-5047 appearing on page 9179 in the issue of 
Friday, February 28, 1997, in the second column, in the DATES section, 
the date ``April 29, 1997'' should read ``March 31, 1997''.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 2085-004]

Southern California Edison Company; Notice of Availability of Final 
Environmental Assessment

Correction

    In notice document 97-8146 appearing on page 15476 in the issue of 
Tuesday, April 1, 1997 make the following correction:
    In the second column, the docket number should appear as set forth 
above.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION

March 19, 2010

MEMORANDUM

FROM: Todd Sherwood
Assessment and Standards Division

TO: EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472

SUBJECT: Payback Analysis on a New Vehicle Purchase

Attached find a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that ca n be used to estimate payback periods on new vehicle purchases for 2012 to 2016 model year v ehicles meeting the final GHG/CAFE standards. The payback period analysis is presente d in section III.H.5 of the preamble and in
section 8.1.3 of EPA’s RIA.

Attachment GHGLD FRM payback analysis.xls
Exhibit 15.1  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-123513, No. 333-134045 and No. 333-165495 on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 25, 2014, relating to the financial statements of AIXTRON SE, and the effectiveness of AIXTRON SEs internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of AIXTRON SE for the year ended December 31, 2013.  /s/ Deloitte &   Touche GmbH WirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaftDeloitte &   ToucheGmbHWirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaftDuesseldorf, Germany, February 25, 2014  1
William Clay WING, II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3340

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 188 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[Corrections]
[Page 50535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X96-30926]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530]


Arizona Public Service Company; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing

Correction

    In notice document 96-23194, beginning on page 47962, in the issue 
of Wednesday, September 11, 1996, make the following correction:
    On page 47962, in the third column, in the first line of the last 
paragraph, ``October 11, 1996'' should be inserted.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
# C_2005137EN.01000401.xml

| 4.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/4

---

Commission Decision declaring that the measure notified by the Czech Republic, under the interim mechanism pursuant to Annex IV.3 of the Act of Accession, is not applicable after accession

(2005/C 137/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: The Czech Republic

Aid No: CZ 46/2003

Title: Investiční a poštovní banka, a.s. (IPB)/Československá obchodní banka, a.s. (ČSOB)

Objective: Aid to the banking sector

Other information: Commission decision declaring that the measures in favour of IPB /ČSOB notified by the Czech Republic under the interim mechanism pursuant to Annex IV.3 of the Accession Act, are not applicable after accession.

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: The Czech Republic

Aid No: CZ 51/2003

Title: Pragobanka, a.s.

Objective: Aid to the banking sector

Other information: Commission decision declaring that the measure in favour of Pragobanka, a.s., notified by the Czech Republic under the interim mechanism pursuant to Annex IV.3 of the Accession Act, is not applicable after accession.

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: The Czech Republic

Aid No: CZ 56/003

Title: Coop Banka, a.s.

Objective: Aid to the banking sector

Other information: Commission decision declaring that the measures in favour of Coop Banka, a.s., notified by the Czech Republic under the interim mechanism pursuant to Annex IV.3 of the Accession Act, are not applicable after accession.

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: The Czech Republic

Aid No: CZ 80/2004

Title: První Městská Banka, a.s.

Objective: Aid to the banking sector

Other information: Commission decision declaring that the measure in favour of První Městská Banka, a.s., notified by the Czech Republic under the interim mechanism pursuant to Annex IV.3 of the Accession Act, is not applicable after accession.

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

---
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 08/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
KPMG (LOGO)

Suite 2700, Independent Square
One Independent Drive
P.O. Box 190
Jacksonville, FL 32201-0190


                          Independent Auditors' Report


The Board of Directors
HomeSide Lending, Inc.:

We have  examined  management's  assertion  about  HomeSide  Lending,  Inc.  and
subsidiaries'  (the Company's)  compliance with the minimum servicing  standards
set forth in the  Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of  America's  Uniform  Single
Attestation  Program for  Mortgage  Bankers and that the Company had in effect a
fidelity bond and errors and  omissions  policy in the amount of $76 million and
$20  million,  respectively,  as of and for the year ended  September  30, 1999,
included in the  accompanying  management  assertion  letter dated  December 17,
1999.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In  our  opinion,   management's  assertion  that  HomeSide  Lending,  Inc.  and
subsidiaries  has  complied in all  material  respects  with the  aforementioned
minimum  servicing  standards and that the Company had in effect a fidelity bond
and errors and  omissions  policy in the amount of $76 million and $20  million,
respectively,  as of and for the year ended September 30, 1999 is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

December 17, 1999


KPMG LLP
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6674

EPHRAIN RELIFORD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Di rector of SCDC; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-887-3-17BC) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: October 17, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ephrain Reliford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We note that Appellant need not seek authorization from this Court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp. 1997) but rather should exhaust his state court remedies. See In re Vial , 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.6 (4th Cir. 1997) (citing Benton v. Washington , 106 F.3d 162, 164 (7th Cir. 1996) (stating that when a § 2254 petition is dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies, courts do not treat a subsequent petition, after exhaustion, as "a second petition" under Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts); Camarano v. Irvin , 98 F.3d 44, 46-47 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding that a petition filed after a prior petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies is not a "`second or successive' petition within the meaning of § 2244.")). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. * Reliford v. Attorney General of South Carolina , No. CA-97-887-3-17BC (D.S.C. May 2, 1997). We dispense withoral 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
Larry Anthony CROSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-1557

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 10, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and M.J. Lord, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Roberts, J.

*70The appellant, Larry Anthony Crosley, challenges the trial court's denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion challenging his sentence of life imprisonment based on the trial court's finding that he qualified as a Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR). The State has conceded error, and we find that the appellant's conviction for burglary with assault or battery does not qualify for the PRR designation and reverse.

The appellant was convicted in March of 2016 of burglary of a conveyance with assault or battery. Because burglary of a conveyance with assault or battery is not an enumerated offense under the PRR statute, the offense can only qualify if it falls under section 775.082(9)(a)1.o., Florida Statutes (2015), which states, "[a]ny felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual." The Florida Supreme Court has stated that in order for an offense to qualify under subsection o., the "use or threat of physical force or violence must be a necessary element of the crime," and if the crime may be committed without the "use or threat of physical force or violence," then that crime does not qualify. *State v. Hearns* , 961 So.2d 211, 217-18 (Fla. 2007). A court is not allowed to look at the specific facts of the case, but can only look to the statute itself to determine if the crime can be committed without the use of threat of physical force or violence. *Id.* at 216. Since a battery can be committed merely by the intentional touching of another person, which may not involve the use or threat of force or violence, the crime of burglary of a conveyance with assault or battery can be committed without the use or threat of physical force or violence. *See**Ellis v. State* , 135 So.3d 478, 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ("[B]ecause burglary with assault or battery encompasses the alternative of battery, which includes the nonforce option of mere touching, that offense cannot support the PRR enhancement under section 775.082(8)(a)(1)(o).")* ; *see also**Suffield v. State* , 132 So.3d 333, 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (burglary with assault or battery does not qualify for the PRR enhancement). Therefore, burglary of a conveyance with assault and battery does not qualify under subsection o. Accordingly, the conviction for burglary with assault or battery does not qualify for the PRR designation.

REVERSED and REMANDED to the trial court for resentencing.

Makar and Jay, JJ., concur.

*

Section 775.082(8)(a)1.o. was renumbered in 1998 to 775.082(9)(a)1.o.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Notices 15443

Road, Waltham, MA 02254–9149

VIRGINIA

Norfolk District Engineer, ATTN:

CENAO–OP–P, 803 Front Street,

Norfolk, VA 23510–1096

WASHINGTON

Seattle District Engineer, ATTN:

CENPS–OP–RG, P.O. Box 3755,

Seattle, WA 98124–2255

WEST VIRGINIA

Huntington District Engineer, ATTN:

CEORH–OR–F, 502 8th Street,

Huntington, WV 25701–2070

WISCONSIN

St. Paul District Engineer, ATTN:

CENCS–CO–R, 190 Fifth Street,

East, St. Paul, MN 55101–1638

WYOMING

Omaha District Engineer, ATTN:

CEMRO–OP–R, 215 North 17th

Street, NE 68102–4978

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Baltimore District Engineer, ATTN:

CENAB–OP–R, P.O. Box 1715,

Baltimore, MD 21203–1715

PACIFIC TERRITORIES

Honolulu District Engineer, ATTN:

CEPOD–CO–O, Building 230, Fort

Shafter, Honolulu, HI 96858–5440

PUERTO RICO AND VIRGIN ISLANDS

Jacksonville District Engineer, ATTN:

CESAJ–RD, P.O. Box 4970,

Jacksonville, FL 32232–0019

State Certification of Nationwide

Permits

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act:

This Federal Register notice of this

NWP serves as the Corps application to

the states or EPA, where appropriate, for

401 water quality certification of the

activities authorized by this NWP. The

states and EPA, where appropriate, are

requested to issue, deny, or waive

certification pursuant to 33 CFR 330.4(c)

for this NWP.

Section 307 of the Coastal Zone

Management Act: This Federal Register

notice serves as the Corps determination

that the activities authorized by this

NWP are consistent with States’ coastal

zone management programs, where

applicable. This determination is

contingent upon the addition of State

CZM conditions and/or regional

conditions or the issuance by the state

of an individual consistency

concurrence, where necessary. The

states are requested to agree or disagree

with this consistency determination

pursuant to 33 CFR 330.4(d) for this

NWP.

Environmental Documentation

We have made a preliminary

determination that this action does not

constitute a major Federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment. Preliminary

environmental documentation has been

prepared for the proposed nationwide

permit. This documentation includes a

preliminary environmental assessment

and a preliminary Section 404(b)(1)

Guidelines compliance review. Copies

of these documents are available for

inspection at the office of the Chief of

Engineers and at each Corps District

office. Based on these documents the

Corps has provisionally determined that

the proposed NWP complies with the

requirements for issuance under general

permit authority.

Dated: March 15, 1995.

Stanley G. Genega,

Major General, USA, Director of Civil Works.

[FR Doc. 95–7206 Filed 3–21–95; 9:25 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–92–M
Certificate Number: 02998-FLS-CC-034155052

02998-FLS-CC-034155052

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSELING

I CERTIFY that on February 28, 2020, at 12:05 o'clock PM EST, Ron Vigdor

received from Consumer Education Services, Inc., DBA Start Fresh Today/DBA

Affordable Bankruptcy Course, an agency approved pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 111 to

provide credit counseling in the Southern District of Florida, an individual [or

group] briefing that complied with the provisions of 11 U.S.C. 109(h) and 111.

A debt repayment plan was not prepared. If a debt repayment plan was prepared, a

copy of the debt repayment plan is attached to this certificate.

This counseling session was conducted by internet.

Date: February 28, 2020 By: /s/Andres Boseman

Name: Andres Boseman

Title: Counselor

* Individuals who wish to file a bankruptcy case under title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy

Code are required to file with the United States Bankruptcy Court a completed certificate of

counseling from the nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency that provided the individual

the counseling services and a copy of the debt repayment plan, if any, developed through the

credit counseling agency. See 11 U.S.C. 109(h) and 521(b).

Case 20-12751-MAM Doc 3 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-20104]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Spectral radiometric and total-field magnetic survey of the McDermitt calderas, NV-OR – Summary      

      January 1, 1982    

View Document

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

No abstract available.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - McDermitt calderas
                  - nevada
                  -  Oregon

View All **
DYNAMIC PUBLIC ADJUSTERS, INC., Appellant, v. KEY WEST BEACH CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION NO. 1, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D17-263

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, the Chief Executive Officer, of Witness Systems, Inc. (the "registrant"), certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of the registrant;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:



Dated
this 13th day of November 2003.

| |  | /s/DAVID B. GOULDDavid B. Gould
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

42

---

QuickLinks