alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 5D23- 2211 LT Case No. 2007

- CF

- 004464

_____________________________
V INCENT C ROWELL ,
Petition er,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Respond ent.

_____________________________

Petition for Wri t of Habeas Corpus

. A Case of Original Jurisdiction.

Vincent Crowell, Lawtey, pro se.
No Appearance for Respondent

. Septem ber 22, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
Petition er Vincent Crowell has filed a “Motion for Manifest Injustice” which this Court treats as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In this successive pleading, Crowell has once again failed to establish that he is illegally detained or that any manife st injustice has occurred. Finding his petition to be un authorized a nd successive, we dismiss the petition. See Johnson v. Singletary , 647 So. 2d 106, 109 (Fla. 1994).2 P ETITION D ISMISSED

.

H ARRIS and S OUD , JJ., concur

. M AC I VER , J., concurs specially, with opinion.

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

.

_____________________________3 M AC I VER , J ., concur r ing

. Case No. 5 D 23

- 2211 LT Case No. 2007

- CF

- 4464

I concur in the dismissal of Crowell’s petition as an unauthorized successive petition seeking the same relief

. I write separately to clarify that I do not agree with the district cases that have held that State v. Lewars , 259 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 2018)
, does not apply retroactively

. Relying
, perhaps to o axiomatically
, on Witt v. State , 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980)
, d istr ict court opinions have describe d the Lewars holding as an “ evolutionary refinement ” of the law. See Sims v. State , 286 So. 3d 292, 294 (Fla. 4th DCA . 2019) ; Wilson v. State , 279 So. 3d 756, 757 (Fla. 2nd DCA . 2019)

. To the contrary, Lewars did little more than compel a plain reading of a statutory provision that had not itself been changed.

Contrasting the major constitutional changes that would be cognizable in post

- conviction capital cases, t he Supreme C ourt in Witt elaborated on what it meant by “evolutionary refinements

. ”

In contrast to these jurisprudential upheavals are evolutionary refinements in the criminal law, affording new or different standards for the admissibility of evidence, for procedural fairness, f or proportionality review of capital cases, and for other like matters. Emergent rights in these categories, or the retraction of former rights of this genre, do not compel an abridgement of the finality of judgments.

Witt , 387 So. 2d at 929.
A dictate from the Supreme Court to read a statute as plainly written is not the same as a court’s expansion or retraction of rights under an amorphous
, overarching standard and is not similar in kind to the other examples alluded to by the Witt court, i.e
., standards of admissibility
, standard s of procedural fairness,

or for proportionality review of capital cases

. In short, the law has not “evolved
, ” rather, decisional law that was incompatible with the plain text of the statute was recognized as such and dispensed with.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0466 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RYAN HUNTER ZITNIK,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 13 , 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 17 2022

11/17/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0466
# Fourth Court **of Appeals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 24, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00883

- CR

Gabrielle DE ARROYO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR5788 Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Pres iding



### ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due on March 5, 2020. We granted a first extension and
set Appellant’s brief due on April 6, 2020. After the once

- extended due date, Appellant filed a
second motion for an extension of time to file the brief until May 22, 2020.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on May 22, 2020.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the se al of the said

court on this 24th day of April, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS LOG

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

sf-3806968 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

RUDY Y. KIM (CA SBN 199426) 

RKim@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington DC 20005 

Telephone: 202.237.2727 

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF 

SUPPLEMENTAL 

CHRONOLOGICAL 

COMMUNICATIONS LOG 

PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 5 OF 

THIS COURT’S ORDER GRANTING 

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PROVISIONAL RELIEF 
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS LOG

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

sf-3806968 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

TO: ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC 

(“Defendants”) hereby lodge a true and correct copy of the following document with the Court 

pursuant to paragraph five of this Court’s May 11, 2017 Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief (ECF No. 426) and the parties’ meet and confer 

with the Special Master regarding the logs lodged on June 23, 2017 and July 3, 2017 (see ECF 

No. 712 Ex. 1; ECF No. 792 Ex. 1): 

Ex. Description 

1 Supplemental chronological log of non-privileged oral and written communications as 

required under paragraph 5 of this Court’s May 11, 2017 Order Granting in Part and 

Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief 

Dated: July 19, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Arturo J. González 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and 

OTTOMOTTO LLC
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Harvey Houtkin, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-QSB  of  Arbor  Entech
Corporation;

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 (if any) 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:

      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  registrant,  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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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

      c)  Disclosed  in this  report  any  change in the  registrant's  internal
control over financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially  affected,  or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

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 (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  registrant'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 registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.


DATE: November 30, 2006                 /S/ HARVEY HOUTKIN
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Harvey Houtkin, Chief Executive Officer
Timothy Deshawn CONLEY, petitioner, v. John PRELESNIK, Warden.

No. 12-8922.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Kevin J. HODGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4834

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
_______________________________________ __ ___________________ ________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 131994(66) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 131994 v COA: 259532 Saginaw CC: 04-024226-FC TRUMON DONTAE CANNON, Defendant-Appellant.

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion by plai ntiff-appellee for extension of the time for filing their brief and appendix is considered and the time is extended to November 20, 2007.

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

November 30, 2007

Clerk
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1250 

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the 

Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly conduct a study 

on the feasibility of designating the Arizona Trail as a national scenic 

trail or a national historic trail. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2005 

Mr. KOLBE (for himself, Mr. RENZI, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. 

HAYWORTH, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. SHADEGG, and Mr. FLAKE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the 

Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 

to jointly conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Arizona Trail as a national scenic trail or 

a national historic trail. 

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 ‘‘Arizona Trail Feasi5 bility Study Act’’. 
2 

•HR 1250 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ARIZONA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY. 

2 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 

3 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended— 

4 (1) by redesignating paragraph (42), relating to 

5 the Long Walk Trail, as paragraph (41); 

6 (2) by redesignating paragraph (41), relating to 

7 the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail, as 

8 paragraph (42); and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

10 paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(43) ARIZONA TRAIL.— 

12 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Arizona Trail, extend13 ing approximately 790 miles through Arizona from 

14 the border between Arizona and Utah to the inter15 national border with Mexico, as generally depicted 

16 on the map entitled ‘Arizona Trail-DRAFT’ and 

17 dated March, 22, 2004, and that consists of a cor18 ridor of open space that— 

19 ‘‘(i) includes 7 ecological zones; 

20 ‘‘(ii) features deserts, canyons, mountains, 

21 lakes, and rivers; and 

22 ‘‘(iii) connects 6 wilderness areas, 4 na23 tional forests, 2 national parks, and 30 outdoor 

24 recreational areas. 
3 

•HR 1250 IH 

1 ‘‘(B) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of the In2 terior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly 

3 conduct the study under subparagraph (A). 

4 ‘‘(C) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map de5 scribed in subparagraph (A) shall be on file and 

6 available for public inspection in the appropriate of7 fices of the Bureau of Land Management. 

8 ‘‘(D) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

9 There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

10 the study under subparagraph (A) $200,000 for the 

11 period of fiscal years 2006 through 2008, of 

12 which— 

13 ‘‘(i) $100,000 shall be made available to 

14 the Secretary of Agriculture; and 

15 ‘‘(ii) $100,000 shall be made available to 

16 the Secretary of the Interior.’’. 

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

December 26, 2012

s1217

Order 

December 26, 2012

145739

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145739

COA: 299237

Wayne CC: 09-025120-FC

WILLIAM HAROLD DOTHARD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 26, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Donald GREEN, petitioner, v. Charles L. LOCKETT, Warden.

No. 12-8461.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1287 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1287

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 312 East North Avenue in Flora, Illinois, as the ``Robert T. Ferguson 
                         Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 312 
East North Avenue in Flora, Illinois, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Robert T. Ferguson Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert T. Ferguson Post 
Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE
FORM 10-Q OF DIONEX CORPORATION FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           16359
<SECURITIES>                                      9252
<RECEIVABLES>                                    29038
<ALLOWANCES>                                       505
<INVENTORY>                                       8301
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 70775
<PP&E>                                           45072
<DEPRECIATION>                                   15004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  108331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            29075
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         32703
<OTHER-SE>                                       44482
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    108331
<SALES>                                          68108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 68108
<CGS>                                            20738
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    20738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  48
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  18395
<INCOME-TAX>                                      6346
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              12049
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     12049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .94
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

ROBERT EARL CUNNINGHAM,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-30259

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00122-SLG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2016** 

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Robert Earl Cunningham appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 600-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction

for six counts of sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

FILED

OCT 04 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§§ 2251(a), (b), and (e). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm. 

Cunningham contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Cunningham’s sentence. See

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality

of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense and the need to protect the

public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-30259
Tiempo para cuidar mi salud ... por los que me necesitan

Este documento fue elaborado por la Oficina 

de la Salud de la Mujer de la Administración de 

Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA) y la 

Asociación Nacional de Cadenas 

Farmacéuticas (NACDS). Agradecemos a todas 

las organizaciones participantes que han 

contribuido a su reproducción y distribución.

www.fda.gov/womens
Entre 30 y 50% de las personas que 

toman medicamentos no lo hacen en 

la forma indicada. Esto aumenta el 

número de visitas al médico o al 

hospital, pérdida de ingresos y recetas 

modificadas. Todo esto nos cuesta más 

de 100 mil millones de dólares al año.

Por lo general, las mujeres se ocupan 

de sus medicamentos y de los de toda 

la familia. Por eso, es importante leer 

las etiquetas, evitar problemas, hacer 

preguntas y llevar un registro.

1. LEA LA ETIQUETA

Antes de tomar cualquier 

medicamento lea la etiqueta. La 

etiqueta debe indicar lo

siguiente:

Lista de ingredientes: Si sabe que es 

alérgica a cualquiera de los 

ingredientes, no use el medicamento. 

Pídale a su médico o farmacéutico que 

le recete otro.

Advertencias: Léalas con mucho

cuidado.

Fecha de vencimiento: No consuma 

ningún medicamento después de la 

fecha de vencimiento que aparece en 

el envase. El efecto puede no ser el 

mismo.

Para mayor información sobre sus medicamentos, 

hable con su médico o farmacéutico.

2. EVITE PROBLEMAS

Los medicamentos pueden causar 

problemas o efectos secundarios, 

como somnolencia, vómitos, sangrado, 

dolores de cabeza o erupciones de la 

piel. Pregunte cuáles son los efectos 

secundarios de los medicamentos que 

toma. Hable con su médico, 

farmacéutico o enfermera.

Para evitar estos problemas es 

importante que:

• mantenga los medicamentos 

organizados;

• tome el medicamento en la cantidad

y la frecuencia indicadas (siga las 

instrucciones del médico)

• no comparta los medicamentos (lo 

que sirve para una persona puede 

ser peligroso para otra); y

• nunca tome medicamentos en la 

oscuridad.

3. PREGUNTE

• ¿Cómo se llama el medicamento? 

• ¿Por qué tengo que tomar este

medicamento?

• ¿Cuándo tengo que tomarlo?

• ¿Lo tomo en ayunas o con las 

comidas?

• ¿Es seguro acompañarlo con bebidas 

alcohólicas?

• Si me olvido de tomarlo, ¿qué hago?

• ¿Cuánto debo tomar?

• ¿Por cuánto tiempo tengo que 

tomarlo?

• ¿Hay problemas que deba prever?

Si está embarazada o amamantando a 

su bebé, pídale consejo a un 

profesional de la salud antes de tomar 

cualquier medicamento o suplemento 

vitamínico. Hable con su médico, 

farmaceútico o enfermera. Ellos le 

ayudarán con agrado.
NOMBRE:

MÉDICO: TELÉFONO:

Visite Drugs@FDA donde encontrará más información acerca de sus medicamentos