alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6723

THURMAN VAN LILLY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

FRED THOMPSON, Associate Warden; MORRIS ELMORE, Lieutenant 

EHSO; JAMES BLACKWELL, DHO; MCKITHER BODISON, Associate 

Warden; D. NUNNALLY, Captain SMU; EUGENE SKIPPER, 

Contraband; S. JENKINS; L. RANDALL, Grievances; D. 

MCCOMMONS, Contraband; DORIS GANTT, Property Control, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

No. 09-6775

THURMAN VAN LILLY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

JON OZMINT; STAN BURTT; ADRIAN MARTELL; R. REEVES; ROBERT 

WARD; FRED B. THOMPSON; THIERRY D. NETTLES; TIM B. ROOF; 

GILBERT EMRHEIN; MR. WILLIAMS; MR. POWELL; YVETTE BLOWE, 

 Defendants – Appellees, 

 and 

JOHN WARD; C. REEVES 

 Defendants. 
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., 

Chief District Judge. (2:08-cv-00266-JFA; 2:07-CV-01700-JFA) 

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit 

Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Thurman Van Lilly, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, 

DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
PER CURIAM: 

Thurman Van Lilly seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaints for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We dismiss the 

appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the notices of appeal 

were not timely filed. 

The time limits for noting an appeal in a civil case 

are set forth in Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, which effectuates 28 U.S.C. § 2107 (2006). See

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 208 (2007). Parties are 

accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s 

final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period 

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period 

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). A failure to file a notice of 

appeal in accordance with § 2107 deprives the appellate court of 

jurisdiction. Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214. 

The district court’s orders were entered on the docket 

on March 10, 2009. The notices of appeal were filed on 

April 14, 2009, the date they were received in the prison mail 

room. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 

276 (1988). Because Lilly failed to file timely notices of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument 

3 
4 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
CERTIFICATION 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 Proguard Acquisition Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the six months ended June 30, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Frank Bauer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of
operations of the Company.

/s/Frank Bauer
-----------------------------
Frank Bauer
Chief Executive Officer

August 10, 2007


CERTIFICATION 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 Proguard Acquisition Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the six months ended June 30, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Norman Becker, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of
operations of the Company.

/s/Norman Becker
-----------------------------
Norman Becker
Chief Financial Officer

August 10, 2007
STATE of Louisiana v. Ellis REED

No. 2018-KH-1825

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL, DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF POINT COUPEE**

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.

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 second or 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.
Exhibit
      32.1


**CERTIFICATE
      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 Annual Report of WGNB Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
      the year ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H.B. Lipham, III, President and
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted pursuant to §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:
      April 30, 2007





/s/
      H.B. Lipham, III


H.B.
      Lipham, III


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)
Case 3:04-cv-02440-O Document 2 Filed 11/12/04 Page 1 of 2 PageID 37
Case 3:04-cv-02440-O Document 2 Filed 11/12/04 Page 2 of 2 PageID 38
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-86,169-01

EX PARTE KENNETH LOUIS HUTTO, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1277 IN THE 31 DISTRICT COURT ST

FROM LIPSCOMB COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated assault

and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends, among other things, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because he did not honor Applicant’s wishes to go to trial and gave incorrect advice about the

applicable punishment range. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these
2

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The

trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If

Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient. Should the trial court find that counsel gave

deficient advice, the court shall make furtherfindings addressing whether, but for counsel’s improper

advice, Applicant would have insisted on a trial. The trial court shall also make any other findings

of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s

claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must be

requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: March 8, 2017

Do not publish
The MAGIC MECHANIC, INC., Appellant, v. GRAHAM MEDIA GROUP, ORLANDO INC. d/b/a WKMG-TV, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1890

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 284 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 284

 To reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2025

Mr. Joyce of Ohio (for himself, Mr. Huizenga, Mrs. Dingell, Ms. Kaptur, 
Mr. Stauber, Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. Schneider, Ms. Tenney, Ms. Stevens, Mr. 
Foster, Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Morelle, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, 
    Mr. Casten, Mr. Bergman, Ms. Scholten, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. 
 Thanedar, Mr. Mrvan, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. James, Mr. Steil, 
   Ms. McDonald Rivet, Mrs. Sykes, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Barrett, and Ms. 
    Brown) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Great Lakes Restoration Initiative 
Act of 2025'' or the ``GLRI Act of 2025''.

SEC. 2. GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 118(c)(7)(J)(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(7)(J)(i)) is amended--
            (1) in subclause (V), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subclause (VI), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                                    ``(VII) $500,000,000 for each of 
                                fiscal years 2027 through 2031.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
10.39






April
30, 2009


ONE
YEAR TERM EXTENSION TO THE


EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 1, 2004





By and
between Siberian Energy Group Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and
Elena Pochapski (“Employee”) entered into this 30th day of
April 2009, and made effective as of January 1, 2009.





WHEREASthe Company and the
Employee previously signed the Employment Agreement, which stated the term of
employment to start on September 1, 2003 and to end on December 31, 2008 (the
“Agreement”, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
A);





AND WHEREAS the Company and
the Employee wish to further extend the term of the employment
agreement.





NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT
WITNESSETH, that the Company and the Employee agree as
follows:





Point 4 “Term” of the
employment Agreement to be revised and the term of the Agreement to be extended
until December 31, 2009 (the “Extended Term”).





Point 5.1
“Compensation” of the employment Agreement to be revised and annual
salary of the Employee to be stated as US$75,000.





Point 6 “Stock
Option” of the employment Agreement is to be removed and a new Stock
Option agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit B, is to be
entered into between the Company and the Employee.





All other
provisions of the Employment Agreement dated September 1, 2003 shall remain in
full force and effect until the expiration of the Extended Term.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed the day
and year first above written.








EMPLOYEE
            COMPANY/s/
      Elena Pochapski
            /s/
      David ZaikinElena
      Pochapski,
            David
      Zaikin,Address: XXX XXXXXX
      XXXXX,
            Chairman
      and CEOXXXXXXXXX,
      XX, XXX XXX
            Siberian
      Energy Group Inc.XXXXXX
Exhibit 23



HANSEN, BARNETT& MAXWELL

A Professional Corporation

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

AND

BUSINESS CONSULTANTS

5 Triad Center, Suite 750

Salt Lake City, UT 84180-1128

Phone: (801) 532-2200

Fax: (801) 532-7944

www.hbmcpas.com







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



To the Board of Directors

International Isotopes, Inc.



We consent to the use of our report dated February 3, 2006 with respect to the financial statements of International Isotopes, Inc. included in this annual report on Form 10-KSB filed on April 11, 2006 with the Securities Exchange Commission, and incorporated by reference in the Registration statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-121335 and No. 333-108776), and Form S-3 (No. 333-106215).









HANSEN, BARNETT & MAXWELL



Salt Lake City, Utah
April 11, 2006
# C_2017300EN.01001301.xml

| 11.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Ramazan Dündar and Others v Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

(Case C-253/17)

(2017/C 300/16)

Language of the case: Germany

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ramazan Dündar, Carolin Wenzel, Antonia Genovese, Jan-Maximilian Mügge

Applicants:

Defendant: Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

Defendant:

By order of 20 June 2017, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union removed the case from the Court’s Register.

---
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 1 of 31 PageID 499
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 2 of 31 PageID 500
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 3 of 31 PageID 501
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 4 of 31 PageID 502
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 5 of 31 PageID 503
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 6 of 31 PageID 504
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 7 of 31 PageID 505
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 8 of 31 PageID 506
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 9 of 31 PageID 507
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 10 of 31 PageID 508
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 11 of 31 PageID 509
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 12 of 31 PageID 510
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 13 of 31 PageID 511
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 14 of 31 PageID 512
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 15 of 31 PageID 513
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 16 of 31 PageID 514
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 17 of 31 PageID 515
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 18 of 31 PageID 516
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 19 of 31 PageID 517
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 20 of 31 PageID 518
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 21 of 31 PageID 519
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 22 of 31 PageID 520
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 23 of 31 PageID 521
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 24 of 31 PageID 522
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 25 of 31 PageID 523
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 26 of 31 PageID 524
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 27 of 31 PageID 525
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 28 of 31 PageID 526
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 29 of 31 PageID 527
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 30 of 31 PageID 528
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 78 Filed 01/31/05 Page 31 of 31 PageID 529
# C_2017256EN.01001701.xml

| 7.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga (Portugal) lodged on 1 June 2017 — Caixa Económica Montepio Geral v Carlos Samuel Pimenta Marinho and Others

(Case C-333/17)

(2017/C 256/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caixa Económica Montepio Geral

Applicant:

Defendants: Carlos Samuel Pimenta Marinho, Maria de Lurdes Coelho Pimenta Marinho, Daniel Pimenta Marinho, Vera da Conceição Pimenta Marinho

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Does EU Law — in so far as it recognises the fundamental right of Union citizens to consumer protection and the fundamental right to equal treatment of citizens and undertakings, enshrined in Article 38 and Article 21, respectively, of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] — preclude national legislation (sole article of Decree-Law No 32765 of 29 April 1943, which establishes an exception to the general scheme provided for in Article 1143 of the Civil Code), in that that legislation accords the banking sector treatment different from that received by the remaining citizens and undertakings, as regards the form that loan contracts must take, envisaging a less formal form for loan contracts concluded by banks?

---
M.A.M.J. v. M.P.W.

2161007

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 221 

To abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2025 

Mr. BURLISON (for himself, Ms. BOEBERT, Mr. BIGGS of Arizona, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. ONDER, Mr. OGLES, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. SELF, and 

Mr. GOSAR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives. 

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 ‘‘Abolish the ATF Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. ABOLISHMENT OF THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TO6 BACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES. 

7 The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Ex8 plosives is hereby abolished. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BRUCE BERNARD ANDERS, )

ID # 642976, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:04-CV-2678-N

 ) ECF

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, )

Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court.

SIGNED July 12, 2006.

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02678-N Document 8 Filed 07/13/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 37
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 1547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00191]

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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules; Hearing of the Judicial 
Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules; notice of cancellation 
of open hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the 
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure has been canceled: Appellate Rules 
Hearing on January 10, 2025.

DATES: January 10, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H. Thomas Byron III, Esq., Chief 
Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus 
Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The announcement for this hearing was 
previously published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2024 at 89 FR 
61498.

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

    Dated: January 3, 2025.
Shelly L. Cox,
Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2025-00191 Filed 1-7-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
```
#### Joe Butler, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed July 20, 1927.

*Philip D. Beall*and *J. McHenry Jones,*for Plaintiff in Error;

J. *B. Johnson,*Attorney General, and *H.. E.. Carter,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

There appears in the record substantial evidence to sustain the verdict and there appears to have been no material or harmful error committed in the progress of the trial.

The judgment should be affirmed on authority of the opinion in the case of Roberts v. State, filed in this Court, April 28th, 1926, and reported in 108 So. 556, and -it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell-and Buford, J.-J,,-coneur.