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

Case No. 2D18-3031

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 24, 2019

Dane K. Chase of Chase Law Florida, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, KHOUZAM, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TR ANSITO POR TILLO-DUR AN, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-73309 Age n c y No. A095-024-689 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d April 22, 2015 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, B YB EE, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Transito Portillo-Dura

n , a native and c i tiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for 

# F IL ED APR 27 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).withholding of rem o v a l. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e

dism iss the pe tition for re v i e w. The IJ de nie d Portillo-Dura n’ s withholding of re

m ova l c la im

on the ba sis that he fa ile d to de m onstra

te a ne xus to ra c e , re ligion, politic a l opinion, or othe r prote c te d ground. TheB IA found tha t , in his c ounse le d a

ppe a l, Portillo-Dura

n did not c ha lle nge the IJ’ s ne xus finding. Thus, we la c k jurisdic tion ove r any c ha lle nge to the IJ’ s ne xus finding. Se eBarron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004) (this c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to re vie w c onte ntions not raise d be fore the B IA). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D.

2 1 0 - 7 3 3 0 9
In re: Andrea ADAMS, et al. v. ALLIED SHIPYARD, INC.

No: 2017-CC-2077

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 2018

Dear Counsel:

This is to advise that the Court took the following action on your Motion to Expand Page Limit of Appendix Two in the above entitled matter.

GRANTED.
William B. CHINNIS, Jr., and Annette P. Chinnis v. PNC BANK, N.A.

2160559

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 5, 2018

Affirmed.
Joel Amos MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1752

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 28, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
CAPE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. d/b/a Cape Coral Hospital, Appellant, v. State of Florida, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5310

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 27, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 28, 2019

Joanne B. Erde and Donna Holshouser Stinson of Duane Morris LLP, Miami, for Appellant.

Tracy Cooper George of the Agency for Health Care Administration, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Cape Memorial Hospital, Inc., challenges a final order issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA"), finding it was overpaid with Medicaid funds for services provided to undocumented aliens. As AHCA is barred from conducting a retrospective review of prior authorized claims pursuant to section 409.905(5)(a), Florida Statutes, the Final Order is reversed and no overpayment is owed by Appellant. *Lee Mem'l Health Sys. Gulf Coast Med. Ctr. v. State of Fla., Agency for Health Care Admin.* , 1D16-1969, (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 27, 2019).

REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of an order consistent with this opinion

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Jay and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Antonio D. TAYLOR, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1032

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
David S. WALTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-146

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 16, 2019

David S. Walter, in proper person.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, and Natalia Costea, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ., and LUCK, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant David S. Walter appeals a December 8, 2017 trial court order summarily denying, as successive, Walter's November 20, 2017 post-conviction motion brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Walter's motion alleged he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, to wit, an affidavit of an alleged witness to the crime.

In February of 2017, however, Walter filed a virtually identical motion, along with the same affidavit that accompanied Walter's November 2017 motion. On June 28, 2017, the trial court denied Walter's February 2017 motion. In its order, the trial court expressed that it was unnecessary to address the merits of the claim because the affidavit was legally insufficient in that it lacked a jurat. Toward the end of this order, though, the trial court elaborated by further finding the affidavit lacked credibility and appeared to be an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the court. Walter did not appeal this June 28, 2017 order.

In this appeal, Walter contends that the trial court erred in finding his November 2017 motion successive on the ground that the trial court did not reach the merits of his February 2017 motion. We disagree. While the trial court's June 28, 2017 order initially indicated that it was unnecessary to address the merits, the order plainly and unequivocally determined that the affidavit upon which Walter's February 2017 motion was based lacked credibility. This constituted a reaching of the merits; and thus, the trial court correctly characterized Walter's November 2017 motion as successive. *McKenley v. State*, 937 So.2d 223, 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ("A trial court may dismiss a successive motion for post-conviction relief that had been previously adjudicated on the merits.").

Affirmed.
C.G. v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160831

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 2, 2018

Affirmed.
S.B., Mother of A.M.S., a Minor Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D18-5175

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE T.R.S.

1170126 (CR-16-0791)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
J.B., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2565

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 54 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 54

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives relating to Definition of ``Frame or 
               Receiver'' and Identification of Firearms.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 23, 2022

 Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Lee, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Paul, Mr. Tillis, Mr. 
 Boozman, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Risch, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Braun, 
Mr. Crapo, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Daines, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Scott 
  of Florida, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Marshall) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives relating to Definition of ``Frame or 
               Receiver'' and Identification of Firearms.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
Explosives relating to ``Definition of `Frame or Receiver' and 
Identification of Firearms'' (87 Fed. Reg. 24652 (April 26, 2022)), and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 869 LT Case No s

. 2022

- MM

- 016894

- A 2022

- CF

- 028310

- A 2022

- CF

- 018085

- A

_____________________________
L ANDIS T HOMPSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County

. Samuel Bookhardt, III , Judge

. Matthew Metz, Public Defender, and Jane C. Almy, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach , for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard A. Pallas, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

September 19, 2023

P ER C URIA M

.
A FFIRMED

.
L AMBERT , E ISNAUGLE , and K ILBANE , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
Christopher Demetrius SIMPKINS Jr, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3383

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 21, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Makar, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Asia  Biotechnology  Group Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Xueliang Qiu, Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and 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.

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and  furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:  September 30, 2006                  By: /s/ Xueliang Qiu
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Xueliang Qiu
                                           Chief Executive Officer and President
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 42 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. HONORING THE LAST SURVIVING MEDAL OF 

4 HONOR RECIPIENT OF WORLD WAR II. 

5 In recognition of Hershel Woodrow ‘‘Woody’’ Wil6 liams, the last surviving recipient of the Medal of Honor 

7 for acts performed during World War II, his remains shall 

8 be permitted to lie in honor in the rotunda of the Capitol 

9 on Thursday, July 14, 2022, in order to honor the Great10 est Generation and the more than 16,000,000 men and 

11 women who served in the Armed Forces of the United 

12 States from 1941 to 1945. The Architect of the Capitol, 

13 under the direction of the President pro tempore of the 

14 Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
2 

†SCON 42 ES 

1 shall take all necessary steps for the accomplishment of 

2 that purpose. 

Passed the Senate July 12, 2022. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 42 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol 

War II. Honor recipient for acts performed during World ‘‘Woody’’ Williams, the last surviving Medal of honor of the remains of Hershel Woodrow on Thursday, July 14, 2022, for the lying in
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DONALD ROGER BURR §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

VS. § NO. 3-05-CV-1539-D 

§

BILL HILL, ET AL. §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

After conducting a review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the findings

and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1), I am of the opinion that the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge are

correct, and they are hereby accepted as the findings of the court. 

SO ORDERED.

January 9, 2007.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01539-D-BD Document 91 Filed 01/09/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 456
Chris HUDSON, Appellant, v. Darlene HUDSON, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1557

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Carlene RENY, Petitioner for The Estate of Anne E. Birch, Appellant, v. State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1332

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 11, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
              CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Tarpon  Industries,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic  Report"),
we, James W. Bradshaw,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  and J. Stanley
Baumgartner,  Jr., 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 Periodic  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 Periodic Report fairly presents,  in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
          operations of the Company.



Dated:  November 14, 2006                       /s/ James W. Bradshaw
                                               --------------------------------
                                                    James W. Bradshaw
                                                    Chief Executive Officer



Dated:  November 14, 2006                       /s/ J. Stanley Baumgartner, Jr.
                                               --------------------------------
                                                     J. Stanley Baumgartner, Jr.
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
Gregory ROLAND, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. POLK COUNTY COURTHOUSE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-5102

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Stephen MCDUFFIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3643

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                          [BANK OF NEW YORK LETTERHEAD]

                                BANK OF NEW YORK

                              Officer's Certificate
                              ---------------------

                                 March 28, 2003



MERRILL LYNCH DEPOSITOR, INC.
North Tower, 7th Floor
4 World Financial Center
New York, New York 10080

                   PREFERREDPLUS AND PPLUS TRUST CERTIFICATES

The undersigned, Kevin Cremin, Vice-President-Business Manager of The Bank of
New York, a New York corporation (the "Trustee"), hereby certifies in such
capacity that, based on his/her knowledge, the Trustee is in compliance with all
conditions and covenants applicable to the Trustee under the Standard Terms for
Trust Agreements dated February 20, 1998 between Merrill Lynch Depositor Inc. as
depositor (the "Depositor") and the Trustee, as successor to United States Trust
Company of New York, as trustee and securities intermediary (the "Securities
Intermediary"), in each case as amended by a series supplement between the
Depositor, the Trustee and the Securities Intermediary for each series of trust
certificates listed in the attached schedule.



                                       1
<PAGE>





                                                  Very truly yours,

                                                  BANK OF NEW YORK
                                                  not in its individual capacity
                                                  but as Trustee


                                                  By: /s/ Kevin Cremin
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                  Name: Kevin Cremin
                                                  Title:  Vice President



                                       2
<PAGE>


                                    SCHEDULE

Public STEERS(R) Series 1998 IBM Z-2 Trust
Public STEERS(R) Series 1998 H-Z3 Trust
Public STEERS(R) Series 1998 F-Z4 Trust
Public STEERS(R) Series 1998 TRV-C1 Trust
Public STEERS(R) Series 1998 HLT-1 Trust
Public STEERS(R) Series 1999 REN-C1 Trust
PreferredPLUS Trust Series CCR-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series BLS-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series ATT-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series NAI-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series FRD-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series BLC-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series LMG-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series CZN-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series QWS-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series CTR-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series LMG-2
PreferredPLUS Trust Series QWS-2
PreferredPLUS Trust Series ALL-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series BLC-2
PreferredPLUS Trust Series ELP-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series MSD-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series VER-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series UPC-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series FAR-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series GEC-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series GRC-1
PPLUS Trust Series PMC-1
PPLUS Trust Series VAL-1
PPLUS Trust Series GSG-1


                                       3
<PAGE>
#### Luciano SANCHEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-70684.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 27, 2004.

*503Suzanne B. Friedman, Esq., Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Colette J. Winston, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable *503for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Luciano Sanchez-Lopez, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal for failure to establish ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the BIA’s determination of statutory eligibility, *Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft,*277 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir.2002), and we review for substantial evidence the BIA’s findings of fact, *Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS,*327 F.3d 892, 895 (9th Cir.2003), *amended by*339 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition.

Sanchez-Lopez contends that the documentary and testimonial evidence in the record establish that he met the ten-year continuous presence requirement for cancellation of removal.

Although the record supports petitioner’s assertion that his trips to Mexico did not exceed 90 days or an aggregate of 180 days during the relevant ten-year period, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2), substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of relief because Sanchez-Lopez did not demonstrate that he was continuously present in the United States between September 1988 and October 1990 during the relevant ten-year period, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).

Pursuant to *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), petitioner’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the motion for stay of removal was continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, to the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 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.
K.T. v. B.P. and J.P.

2160804

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 2, 2018 Reh. denied March 16, 2018

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Group Maintenance America Corp. and Subsidiaries

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-41749 and No. 333-41751) on Form S-8 of Group Maintenance America Corp.
of (i) our report dated February 23, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Group Maintenance America Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
1997 and February 28, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, cash flows and shareholders' equity for the ten months ended
December 31, 1997 and the years ended February 28, 1997 and February 29, 1996,
and (ii) our report dated July 11, 1997 relating to the balance sheets of Group
Maintenance America Corp. as of December 31, 1996 and April 30, 1997, and the
related statements of operations, shareholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows
for the period from October 31, 1996 (Inception) to December 31, 1996 and the
four months ended April 30, 1997, which reports appear in the December 31, 1997
annual report on Form 10-K of Group Maintenance America Corp.

                                          KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Houston, Texas
March 30, 1998