alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ERIC LYONS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-5578

________________________/

Opinion filed February 2, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jan Shackelford, Judge.

Michael R. Rollo of Michael R. Rollo, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Matthew Pavese, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WOLF and THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
# L_2008070EN.01002201.xml

| 14.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 70/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 70/22

---

COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2008/223/CFSP

of 13 March 2008

renewing measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 30 March 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/293/CFSP renewing measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1). These measures were renewed again by Common Position 2007/150/CFSP (2) and are due to expire on 16 March 2008. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 30 March 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/293/CFSP renewing measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1). These measures were renewed again by Common Position 2007/150/CFSP (2) and are due to expire on 16 March 2008.

| (2) | The Council considers it necessary to renew the measures imposed by Common Position 2004/293/CFSP for a further period of 12 months, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Council considers it necessary to renew the measures imposed by Common Position 2004/293/CFSP for a further period of 12 months,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

Common Position 2004/293/CFSP shall be extended until 16 March 2009.

Article 2

This Common Position shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 13 March 2008.

For the Council

The President

D. RUPEL

---

(1)  
  OJ L 94, 31.3.2004, p. 65. Common Position as last amended by Decision 2007/521/CFSP (OJ L 192, 24.7.2007, p. 30).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 66, 6.3.2007, p. 21.

2

---
[No. 20162-3-II.

Division Two.

September 19, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. David Paul Locklin, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 95-1-00904-2, Thomas L. Lodge, J., entered November 27, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Bridgewater, A.C.J., and Seinfeld, J.
#### LEERBURGER v. POLSTEIN. MAIDA v. JOLINE (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 15, 1912.)

Actions by Matilda Leerburger against Joseph Polstein and by Gennaro Maida and Vincenzo Maida against Adrian H. Joline. No opinions. Motions granted, with §10 costs. Orders filed.
Order entered October 31, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00642
- CV BRIDGET PARSON, Appellant

V. BECKY COLE, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at L aw No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 1501563
- B



### O RDER It has come to the Court’s attention that appellant has filed a petition for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court. This automatically suspends further action in this appe al.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 8.2. Accordingly, we ABATE this appeal. It may be reinstated on prompt motion by any party complying with Rule 8.3 and specifying what further action, if any, is required from this
Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 8.3.
/s/ CAROLYN WRIG HT CHIEF JUSTICE
[Cite as State v. Cummings , 2022

- Ohio

- 1800.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

, Appellee,

- vs
-

BRIAN J. CUMMINGS

, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA20 21

- 12

- 157

D E C I S I O N 5/31/2022

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR 2020 10 1356

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and John Heinkel, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee

.
Lorraine M. Search , for appellant

.

Per Curiam

. {¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by

appellant, Brian J. Cummings

, the transcript of the docke t and journal entries, the tran script
of proceedings and original papers from the Butler C ounty Court of Common Pleas, and

upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.Butler CA2021

- 12

- 157

{¶2} Appellant's c ounsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967)

, which (1) indicates that a careful review of
the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated;

(2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87
S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently t o determine

whether the proceed ings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of
appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for
appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of b oth

the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant.

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having
been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant
requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason

that it is wholly frivolous.

PIPER , P.J., S. POWELL and HENDRICKSON

, JJ., concur.
---

March 30, 2012

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (the "Company")
|--- | ----------------------------------------------
|    |                                               
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F                    
|    |                                               
|    | Consent of Expert                             

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2011, (the Annual Report)
to be filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the SEC).

I, J. David Gaunt, P.Geo., hereby consent to the use of my name
in connection with reference to my involvement in the preparation of the
resource estimate in the following technical report (the "Technical
Report"):

- Preliminary Assessment of the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska dated
  February 17, 2011

and to references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof,
in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the
information derived from the Technical Report related to me in the Annual
Report.

Yours truly,

/s/ J. David Gaunt

|                      
|----------------------
|J. David Gaunt, P.Geo.
|                      
|Hunter Dickinson Inc. 

---
#### BOEHMER, Respondent, v. INTERNATIONAL RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 28, 1912.)

Action by Oscar Boehmer against the International Railway Company. No opinion. Judgment and orders affirmed, with costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ROBERT L. HARRIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-504-PPS 

)

SHERIFF, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Robert L. Harris, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas petition attempting to challenge a

pending State criminal proceeding in the St. Joseph Superior Court under cause number 71D03-

1503-F6-167. Because he has not yet been convicted, he is attempting to avoid being prosecuted.

“Ordinarily the attempt of a state prisoner to obtain federal habeas corpus relief in advance of his

state criminal trial [is] completely hopeless.” United States ex rel. Stevens v. Circuit Court of

Milwaukee County, 675 F.2d 946, 947 (7th Cir. 1982). This is one of those ordinary cases.

Though the Seventh Circuit in Stevens provided for a narrow exception to entertain some double

jeopardy claims, this case does not present a double jeopardy claim. Here, Harris argues that he

is innocent because he is not the person that authorities were looking for. This is a question to be

resolved in the first instance by the State trial court – not this Court. Thus, to the extent that

Harris believes that he has a viable defense to the charges against him or that his case is not

being properly adjudicated, he needs to first present those claims to the State courts – at trial, on

appeal, and ultimately to the Indiana Supreme Court. See Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019,

1025-1026 (7th Cir. 2004). Therefore this petition will be dismissed without prejudice. If Harris
is convicted, then after he has presented his claims to the Indiana Supreme Court, he may return

to this Court and file another habeas corpus petition challenging the conviction. 

Finally, pursuant to RULE 11 OF THE RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES, the court

must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability in all cases where it enters a final order

adverse to the petitioner. To obtain a certificate of appealability, the petitioner must make a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right by establishing “that reasonable jurists

could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a

different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quote marks and citation

omitted). As explained, Harris has not yet been convicted and federal habeas corpus is not the

proper means of asserting his defenses to the charges he is facing in State court. Nothing before

me suggests that jurists of reason could debate the correctness of this procedural ruling or find a

reason to encourage this case to proceed further. Accordingly, I decline to issue a certificate of

appealability.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition [DE 1] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

and the petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: November 19, 2015

s/ Philip P. Simon

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

4
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2125 

To provide that unremarried former spouses of retired and career members 

of the Armed Forces shall be entitled to military health care and commissary and exchange benefits if married for at least 10 years during 

the member’s military service and if the former spouse left the marriage 

due to domestic violence or unbearable conditions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2005 

Mr. FILNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide that unremarried former spouses of retired and 

career members of the Armed Forces shall be entitled 

to military health care and commissary and exchange 

benefits if married for at least 10 years during the 

member’s military service and if the former spouse left 

the marriage due to domestic violence or unbearable conditions. 

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 ‘‘Continued Benefits 

5 for Injured Military Spouses Act’’. 
2 

•HR 2125 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN UNREMARRIED FORMER 

2 MILITARY SPOUSES FOR MILITARY HEALTH 

3 CARE AND AND COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE 

4 BENEFITS. 

5 (a) ELIGIBILITY.—A person described in subsection 

6 (b) shall be deemed for all purposes to be described in 

7 subparagraph (F)(i) of section 1072(2) of title 10, United 

8 States Code. 

9 (b) PERSONS COVERED.—Subsection (a) applies to a 

10 person who— 

11 (1) is the unremarried former spouse of a mem12 ber of the uniformed services who performed at least 

13 20 years of service which is creditable in deter14 mining the member’s eligibility for retired pay and 

15 on the date of the final decree of divorce, dissolu16 tion, or annulment had been married to the member 

17 for a period of at least 20 years, of which at least 

18 10 years were during the period the member per19 formed service creditable in determining the mem20 ber’s eligibility for retired pay; and 

21 (2) sought a divorce, dissolution, or annulment 

22 from the member of the uniformed services due, in 

23 whole or in part, to (A) domestic violence involving 

24 that person or a child of that person that is substan25 tiated by counseling or medical records, or (B) other 
3 

•HR 2125 IH 

1 circumstances that (as determined by the Secretary 

2 concerned) constitute unbearable conditions. 

3 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

4 (1) The term ‘‘retired pay’’ includes retainer 

5 pay or equivalent pay. 

6 (2) The term ‘‘member’’ includes a former 

7 member entitled to retired pay or who would be enti8 tled to that pay but for being under age 60. 

Æ
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1922 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3-Dibromo-5-dimethyl-hydantoin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

Mr. HULSHOF introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3-Dibromo-5-dimethylhydantoin. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 1,3-DIBROMO-5-DIMETHYL-HYDANTOIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.67 1,3-Dibromo-5-dimethylhydantoin (CAS No. 77–48– 

5) (provided for in subheading 2933.21.00) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 1922 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### JAMES V. THE STATE.

*Asscmlt With Intent to Murder.*

(Decided May 14, 1907.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. S. L. Weaver. ■

No counsel marked for appellants.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for tbe State.

Opinion by

Denson, J.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., Haralson and Simpson, JJ., concur.
2018

9

I am pleased to present 

the FDIC’s 2018 Annual 

Report, which covers 

financial and program 

performance information 

and summarizes our 

successes for the year.

For 27 consecutive years, 

the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office has issued unmodified audit 

opinions for the two funds administered by the 

FDIC: the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) and the 

Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation 

(FSLIC) Resolution Fund (FRF). We take pride 

in our responsibility and demonstrate discipline 

and accountability as stewards of these funds. We 

remain proactive in the execution of sound financial 

management and in providing reliable financial data.

2018 FINANCIAL AND 

PROGRAM RESULTS

The DIF balance (the net worth of the Fund) rose 

to a record $102.6 billion as of December 31, 2018, 

compared to the year-end 2017 balance of $92.7 

billion. The Fund balance increase was primarily 

due to assessment revenue. No insured financial 

institutions failed in 2018.

The DIF U.S. Treasury securities investment portfolio 

balance was $92.7 billion as of December 31, 2018, 

an increase of $9.4 billion over the year-end 2017 

portfolio balance of $83.3 billion. Interest revenue on 

DIF investments was $1.6 billion for 2018, compared 

to $1.1 billion for 2017.

In 2018, the FDIC continued to reduce operating 

costs and prudently manage the funds that it 

administers. The FDIC Operating Budget for 2018 

totaled approximately $2.09 billion, which represented 

a decrease of $66 million (3.0 percent) from 2017. 

Actual 2018 spending totaled approximately $1.90 

billion. On December 18, 2018, the FDIC Board of 

Directors approved a 2019 FDIC Operating Budget 

totaling $2.04 billion, down $49 million (2.3 percent) 

from the 2018 budget. Including 2019, the annual 

operating budget has declined for nine consecutive 

years, consistent with a steadily declining workload.

The FDIC continues to reduce staffing levels, as 

conditions in the banking industry improve and 

the FDIC requires fewer resources. The FDIC’s 

authorized full-time equivalent staffing dropped 

from 6,363 in 2017 to 6,083 in 2018, a 4.4 percent 

reduction. The FDIC Board of Directors recently 

approved an authorized staffing level of 5,901 fulltime equivalent positons for 2019, a 3.0 percent 

reduction from 2018.

The FDIC also took important steps in 2018 to 

enhance its enterprise risk management program 

by updating our enterprise risk management and 

internal control corporate directive, drafting a risk 

appetite statement, and updating our risk profile. 

We will continue to implement enhancements to the 

program during 2019 to ensure the FDIC identifies 

and addresses enterprise risks proactively. We will 

remain focused on implementing sound financial 

management techniques, effective internal controls, 

and appropriate risk responses.

Sincerely,

Steven O. App

M E S S A G E F R O M T H E 

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

            INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
              FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND 1998
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      1999              1998
                                                   ----------        ----------
                                                           (Unaudited)
<S>                                                <C>               <C>
Earnings:
Net Income                                         $  337,748           262,803
  Add:
    Provision for income taxes                        185,413           142,750
    Fixed charges                                     602,407           588,170
  Less:
    Capitalized interest                               34,051            41,193
                                                   ----------        ----------
  Earnings as adjusted (A)                         $1,091,517        $  952,530
                                                   ----------        ==========

Preferred dividend requirements                    $   13,074        $   12,656
Ratio of income before provision
    for income taxes to net income                        155%              154%
                                                   ----------        ----------
  Preferred dividend factor on pretax
    basis                                              20,265            19,490
                                                   ----------        ----------
Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense                                    512,964           477,318
  Capitalized interest                                 34,051            41,193
  Interest factor of rents                             55,392            69,659
                                                   ----------        ----------
  Fixed charges as adjusted (B)                       602,407           588,170
                                                   ----------        ----------

Fixed charges and preferred stock
    dividends (C)                                  $  622,672        $  607,660
                                                   ----------        ==========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    (A) divided by (B)                                  1.81x             1.62x
                                                   ----------        ==========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    and preferred stock dividends
    (A) divided by (C)                                  1.75x             1.57x
                                                   ----------        ==========
</TABLE>
# C_2008014EN.01002101.xml

| 19.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/21

---

COUNCIL DECISION

COUNCIL DECISION

of 15 October 2007

of appointing the United Kingdom member of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

(2008/C 14/07)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of 10 February 1975 establishing the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, and in particular Article 4 thereof (1),

1

Having regard to the nomination submitted by the United Kingdom Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decision of 18 September 2006 (2), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2006 to 17 September 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decision of 18 September 2006 (2), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2006 to 17 September 2009.

2

| (2) | A member's seat on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Government representatives has become vacant as a result of the resignation of Ms Pauline CHARLES. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Government representatives has become vacant as a result of the resignation of Ms Pauline CHARLES.

| (3) | The United Kingdom member of the Governing Board of the aforementioned Centre should be appointed for the remainder of the current term of office, which expires on 17 September 2009, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The United Kingdom member of the Governing Board of the aforementioned Centre should be appointed for the remainder of the current term of office, which expires on 17 September 2009,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The following person is hereby appointed member of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the remainder of the term of office, which runs until 17 September 2009:

I.   GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

UNITED KINGDOM: Ms Nicola SAMS

Done at Luxembourg, 15 October 2007.

For the Council

The President

L. AMADO

---

(1)  OJ L 39, 13.2.1975, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2051/2004 (OJ L 355, 1.12.2004, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C 240, 5.10.2006, p. 1.

2

---