alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

In the Matter of 

MARK ANDREW SALOMAN 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT 

FROM INACTIVE STATUS 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 29 DB 2015 (No. 50 RST 2015) 

Attorney Registration No. 71195 

(Out of State) 

O R D E R 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 4th day of August, 2015, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated July 27, 2015, is approved and it is ORDERED that 

Mark Andrew Saloman, who has been on Inactive Status, has never been suspended or 

disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and 

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, 

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The 

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall 

be paid by the Petitioner.
# C_2021357EN.01001502.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/15

---

Order of the President of the Court of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles — Belgium) — SD v Habitations sociales du Roman Païs SCRL, TE, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Régie des Quartiers de Tubize ASBL

(Case C-104/20) (1)

(2021/C 357/20)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---
George Braxton GREEN v. STATE

CR-16-0755

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017 Reh. denied August 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
William V. LOPERENA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-643

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit








DEDICATED STORAGE SERVICE ORDER 
This Dedicated Storage Service Order is entered as of August 31, 2016, by and between Torrance Valley Pipeline Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“TVPC”) and PBF Holding Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“PBF Holding”), pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of the Transportation Services Agreement (SJV System) dated as of August 31, 2016, by and among such parties (the “Agreement”).  The Dedicated Storage Tank is set forth on Attachment 1 to this Dedicated Storage Service Order (the “Dedicated Storage Tank”). 
Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement. 
(i)    the Operating Capacity and Shell Capacity of the Dedicated Storage Tank; see Attachment 1. 
(ii)    Storage Services Fees: PBF Holding shall pay TVPC $0.85 per Barrel fixed rate for the Shell Capacity of the Dedicated Storage Tank, which rate includes throughput equal to the Shell Capacity of the Dedicated Storage Tank, subject to adjustment as set forth below;
(iii)     PBF Holding shall also be responsible for:
		
	(a)
	any modification, cleaning, or conversion of the Dedicated Storage Tank as required or requested by PBF Holding pursuant to Section 10 of the Agreement;  




		
	(b)
	reimbursement related to newly imposed taxes pursuant to Section 6 of the Agreement; 




		
	(c)
	Surcharges related to expenditures as a result of newly imposed laws and regulations pursuant to Section 7 of the Agreement; and 




(d)  any other services as may be agreed. 
Except as set forth in this Dedicated Storage Service Order, the other terms of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and shall apply to the terms of this Dedicated Storage Service Order. 
[Signature Page Follows]































IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Dedicated Storage Service Order as of the date first written above. 
	
		
	TORRANCE VALLEY PIPELINE COMPANY LLC
	PBF HOLDING COMPANY LLC

	By:  /s/ Matthew Lucey
Name: Matthew Lucey
Title: Executive Vice President
	By:  /s/ Trecia Canty
Name: Trecia Canty
Title: Secretary



































































ATTACHMENT 1
OPERATING CAPACITY AND SHELL CAPACITY OF DEDICATED STORAGE TANK
Midway Tank- Shell Capacity of 55,000 bbls and Operating Capacity of 43,360 bbls
UNKNOWN HEIR n/k/a Jewell Smith Kolosoff, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., as Trustee, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3638

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Davon K. WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3903

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 12.1  CERTIFICATION  I, Joseph Jimenez, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Novartis AG;  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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The company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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date: January 27, 2016   By:
/s/  JOSEPH   JIMENEZJoseph JimenezChief   Executive Officer
Malcolm T. WATKINS, Appellant, v. FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4552

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
A00A0183, A00A0184.

#### STEWART v. THE STATE (two cases).

(522 SE2d 743)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Freddie Stewart was charged in separate indictments in Tattnall County and Bryan County, alleging the unlawful disposition of proceeds received from preneed funeral service contracts, in that Stewart failed to maintain such funds unimpaired in an authorized state bank as required by OCGA § 43-18-96. Stewart moved to dismiss the indictments, contending the statute under which he was charged was unconstitutional. Both the Tattnall Superior Court and the Bryan Superior Court denied the motions to dismiss. Stewart filed notices of direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which concluded its subject matter jurisdiction had not been invoked and transferred the cases to the Court of Appeals of Georgia. *Held:*

The denial of each motion to dismiss the respective indictment is not a final judgment, directly appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), but is only an interlocutory order. *Hicks v. State,*234 Ga. 142, 143 *155(214 SE2d 658). Although Stewart obtained certificates of immediate review from the superior court, he did not pursue the mandatory application procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) for interlocutory appeal. Overruled exceptions to the charging instrument1 are reviewed only under the interlocutory procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) or after a conviction. *Ivey v. State,*210 Ga. App. 782, 783 (437 SE2d 810). We are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of these direct appeals from interlocutory orders, and so Case Nos. A00A0183 and A00A0184 must be dismissed.

Decided September 24, 1999.

*Salter & Shook, Mitchell M. Shook,*for appellant.

*J. Thomas Durden, Jr., District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General,*for appellee.

*Appeals dismissed.*

*Johnson, C. J, and Phipps, J., concur.*

1

 Compare *Patterson v. State,*248 Ga. 875 (287 SE2d 7) (denial of double jeopardy plea is directly appealable); *Hubbard v. State,*254 Ga. 694 (333 SE2d 827) (denial of demand for discharge and acquittal under OCGA § 17-7-170 is directly appealable).
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - (-)multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

              - alaska(3)
              - arizona(1)
              - california(2)
              - colorado(1)
              - florida(1)
              - louisiana(2)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - south carolina(3)
              - south dakota(24)
              - virginia(2)

## By Year

Podcasts        May 18, 2020        Eyes on Earth Episode 25 - Rising Seas

Podcasts        January 27, 2020        Eyes on Earth Episode 15 – Burn Severity Mapping

Podcasts        March 20, 2008        Drought: the Long, Slow Natural Hazard (Part 2)

Podcasts        November 30, 2021        Eyes on Earth Episode 62 - Landsat 9 Launch Part 3

#### Pagination

-  First page« First 
-  Previous page‹‹ 
-                Page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
-                Page            4 
-                Page            5 
-                Current page            6
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 49 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 49

 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Chinese Communist Party's 
  espionage mission to send a surveillance balloon across the United 
 States, in violation of international law, is unacceptable and should 
                             be condemned.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 9, 2023

 Mr. Hawley submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Chinese Communist Party's 
  espionage mission to send a surveillance balloon across the United 
 States, in violation of international law, is unacceptable and should 
                             be condemned.

Whereas, on January 28, 2023, the Chinese Communist Party flew a balloon 
        aircraft into United States airspace in Alaska to conduct surveillance;
Whereas, on January 31, 2023, the Chinese surveillance balloon reentered United 
        States airspace over Idaho;
Whereas, on February 1, 2023, the Chinese surveillance balloon was seen over 
        Montana;
Whereas, on February 2, 2023, the Department of Defense confirmed its detection 
        and tracking of the Chinese ``high-altitude surveillance balloon'';
Whereas, on February 3, 2023, the Chinese surveillance balloon was seen over 
        Missouri; and
Whereas, at 2:39 p.m. on February 4, 2023, the United States military shot down 
        the Chinese surveillance balloon using a single AIM-9X air-to-air 
        missile fired from a F-22 Raptor off the coast of Surfside Beach, South 
        Carolina: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) condemns the Chinese Communist Party's invasion of 
        United States airspace to conduct surveillance;
            (2) affirms that it is the policy of the United States to 
        protect the sovereignty and integrity of United States airspace 
        from foreign and hostile state actors, especially the People's 
        Republic of China; and
            (3) calls on the President to be transparent with the 
        American people and Congress regarding this latest spying 
        incident and all other attempts by the Chinese Communist Party 
        to conduct surveillance on United States citizens, territory, 
        and assets.
                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7638** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DANIEL JUNIOR MCNEIL , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 1:10

- cr - 00406

- WO

- 1; 1:13

- cv - 00718

- WO

- LPA )

Submitted : March 29 , 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Remanded by un published per curiam opinion
. Daniel Junior McNeil, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent i n this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Daniel Junior McNeil, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Parties in a civil action in which t he United States is a party have 60 days following entry of judgment in which to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U. S. 205, 214 (2007). Because McNeil is incarcerated, the notice of appeal is considered filed on the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). The recor d does not conclusively reveal when McNeil delivered the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to obtain this information from the parties and to determine whether the filing was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack . The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consider ation
. REMANDED
# C_2020027EN.01006601.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/66

---

Action brought on 22 November 2019 — Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional v EUIPO (El Clasico)

(Case T-809/19)

(2020/C 27/66)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Casas Feu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark El Clasico — Application for registration No 1 379 292

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2019 in Case R 1966/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | give judgment allowing the registration in the European Union of the international mark No 1 379 292 El Clásico (mixed) in Class 41 in the name of La Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional; |
| --- | --- |

—

give judgment allowing the registration in the European Union of the international mark No 1 379 292 El Clásico (mixed) in Class 41 in the name of La Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DW AYNE M E R EDITH, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. R AUL LOPEZ, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 12-16594

D.C . No. 2:10-c v-01395-JFM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia John F. M oulds, M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 4, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TR OTT, THOM AS, and M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. W e have jurisdic tion of this tim e ly a ppe a l pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 and 2253(a ), and we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED D EC 16 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B e c a

use the fa c ts a

nd c irc um sta

nc e s of this c a se are we ll known to the pa rtie s and we re fully

a ire d during ora l a

rgum e n t, we ne e d not re pe a t the m at le ngth in this disposition. R e sponde nt Lope z c onc e de s tha t M e re dith’ s right to pa

rtic ipate in his trial without we aring ide ntifia ble ja il c lothing wa s viola t e d by the tria l judge . Ne ve rthe le ss, M e re dith is not e ntitle d to re lie f if this viola

tion ha d no “ substa

ntia l and injurious e ffe c t or influe nc e in de t e rm ining thejury ’ s ve rdic t.” Bre c ht v . Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993) (inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om itte d). Upon e xam ining the re c ord, we c onc lude tha t the viola tion ha d no suc h influe nc e or e ffe c t. M e re dith c onc e de d at tria l tha t he wa s in posse ssion of stolen prope rty from the v ic tim ’ s hom e (C ount II) a s we l l a s m e tha m phe tam ine (C ount III), le a v ing us with only the c o nte s te d re s ide ntia l burgla ry to c o nside r (C ount I). As to this c ount, an e y e w itne ss obse rve d M e re dith e xiting the vic tim ’ s pre viously loc ke d ga

ra ge . Whe n a ske d by

the witne ss for his na

m e , M e re d ith hoppe d ove r a fe nc e an d spe d off down the stre e t

while “ tuc ke d down” in a c ar. Whe n the polic e a

ppre he nde d him , he wa s in posse ssion of two item s be longing to the vic tim tha t pre v iously

ha d be e n in the house . The e y e witne ss prom p tly ide ntifie d M e re d ith ne ar the sc e ne of his a rre st.

2M ore ove r, M e re dith’ s prim ary de fe nse to the burgla

ry wa s tha t the house involve d did not qualify

a s a re side nc e . This de fe nse c ould not ha ve be e n influe n c e d by

M e re dith’ s ide ntifia

ble ja il c l othing. AFFIRM E D .

3
James B. INGRAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3584

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Diahann D. KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2770

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 20, 2019]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

After an argument with the operator of an after-hours club, outside of the establishment, appellant pulled a handgun out of her purse and fired at the operator. The bullet shattered the club's glass door-the operator ducked inside unhurt but a bouncer holding the door open was hit. The bouncer was an unintended victim of the shooting.

Appellant was convicted of attempted first degree murder of both the club operator and the bouncer. As to the conviction involving the bouncer, the trial court erred in not granting a motion for judgment of acquittal. To support a conviction, the state was required to prove the specific intent to commit first degree murder plus an overt act in furtherance of that intent. *See**Bell v. State* , 768 So.2d 22, 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). On this record, appellant's only intent was to kill the club operator, not the bouncer. We agree with those courts that have held that the doctrine of transferred intent does not apply to the "crime of attempted murder of the unintended victim." *Id.* at 28, and cases cited therein; *see also**State v. Brady* , 745 So.2d 954, 956, n.2 (Fla. 1999).

We reverse the conviction for attempted first degree murder of the bouncer. As did the court in *Bell* , we remand with directions that the trial court enter judgment for attempted second degree murder and for resentencing on that count. 768 So.2d at 28.

We have considered the other issues raised on appeal and find no reversible error.

*Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings* .

Gross, May and Damoorgian, JJ., concur.