alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC17

- 2086

____________ PAUL ANTHONY BROWN,

Appellant,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [February 28, 2018]
PER CURIAM. We have for review Paul Anthony Brown’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Brown’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Brown’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s
decision in Hurst v. Florida , 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in
Hurst v. State ( Hurst ), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert.
denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017) , Brown responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.- 2

-

After reviewing Brown’s response to the order to show cause, as well as th e State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Brown is not entitled to relief. Brown was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death.
Brown v. State , 721 So. 2d 274, 276

- 77 (Fla. 1998 ). Brown’s sentence of death
became fina l in 1999

. Brown v. Florida , 526 U.S. 1102 ( 199 9 ). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Brown’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Brown’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Brown , we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so
ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in resul t with an opinion. LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock
v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock

. An Appeal from th e Circuit Court in and for Volusia County, Terence R. Perkins , Judge

- Case No. 641992CF034756XXXAES
Linda McDermott of McClain & Mc Dermo tt, P.A., Estero, Florida , for Appellant- 3

-

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Doris Meacham, A ssistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach , Florida, for Appellee
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2393 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2015 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal 

country of origin labeling requirements with respect to 

beef, pork, and chicken, and for other purposes. 

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2393 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Country of Origin La3 beling Amendments Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING RE5 QUIREMENTS FOR BEEF, PORK, AND CHICK6 EN. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 281 of the Agricultural 

8 Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (7); 

10 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), 

11 (5), (6), (8), and (9) as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), 

12 (4), (5), (6), and (7), respectively; and 

13 (3) in paragraph (1)(A) (as so redesignated)— 

14 (A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the 

15 following new clause: 

16 ‘‘(i) muscle cuts of lamb and veni17 son;’’; 

18 (B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the 

19 following new clause: 

20 ‘‘(ii) ground lamb and ground veni21 son;’’; 

22 (C) by striking clause (viii); and 

23 (D) by redesignating clauses (ix), (x), and 

24 (xi) as clauses (viii), (ix), and (x), respectively. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2393 RDS 

1 (b) NOTICE OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.—Section 282 

2 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 

3 1638a) is amended— 

4 (1) in subsection (a)(2)— 

5 (A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘BEEF, 

6 LAMB, PORK, CHICKEN,’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘LAMB,’’; 

8 (B) by striking ‘‘beef, lamb, pork, chick9 en,’’ and inserting ‘‘lamb,’’ each place it ap10 pears in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D); 

11 and 

12 (C) in subparagraph (E)— 

13 (i) in the heading, by striking 

14 ‘‘GROUND BEEF, PORK, LAMB, CHICKEN,’’ 

15 and inserting ‘‘GROUND LAMB,’’; and 

16 (ii) by striking ‘‘ground beef, ground 

17 pork, ground lamb, ground chicken,’’ each 

18 place it appears and inserting ‘‘ground 

19 lamb,’’; and 

20 (2) in subsection (f)(2)— 

21 (A) by striking subparagraphs (B) and 

22 (C); and 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 2393 RDS 

1 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) 

2 and (E) as subparagraphs (B) and (C), respec3 tively. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HONGWEI YANG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-71303

Agency No. A088-113-167

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 22, 2015** 

Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Hongwei Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

APR 27 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination

based on Yang’s different accounts of what officials informed him about his

father’s suicide and based on inconsistencies regarding his addresses. See id. at

1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of

circumstances”). Yang’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See

Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject Yang’s contention

that his documentary evidence overcomes the agency’s negative credibility finding. 

See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (documents not sufficient

to rehabilitate testimony). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Yang’s

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Yang’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence the

agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that

compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or

2 12-71303
with the acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590

F.3d at 1048-49.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 12-71303
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I hereby certify
that:






I
have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2009.






To
the best of my knowledge this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (i) fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m (a) or 78o (d)); and, (ii) the information contained
in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Tengasco, Inc. and its subsidiaries
during the period covered by this report.






Dated:
November 9, 2009











By:
      s/Jeffrey R. Bailey
              Jeffrey
      R. Bailey
              Chief
      Executive
 Officer
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Panel on the WTO TRIPS Agreement and its Relation to the Public Health and U.S. Intellectual Property

April 26, 2023 at 3:00 p.m. (Eastern)

The Intellectual Property (IP) waiver India and South Africa have proposed to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to temporarily waive certain IP rights under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) for COVID-19 vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics aims to ensure that intellectual property rights do not create barriers to the timely access to affordable medical products, including vaccines, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The proposal has gained support from over 100 countries and several international organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN). However, it has also faced opposition from some high-income countries, particularly those with large pharmaceutical industries, who argue that it could discourage future innovation and investment in medical research. Please join us for a panel discussion of these issues. RSVP at press_office@cfc.uscourts.gov.

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 05-1119 L

Filed: May 13, 2015

****************************************

*

ST. BERNARD PARISH GOVERNMENT *

AND OTHER OWNERS OF REAL *

PROPERTY IN ST. BERNARD PARISH *

OR THE LOWER NINTH WARD OF THE *

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

****************************************

ORDER

On May 6, 2015, the court convened a settlement conference at the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, during which the parties discussed three options: 

mediation; certification or interlocutory appeal of the court’s May 1, 2015 Memorandum Opinion 

And Order On Liability Regarding A Temporary Taking By Flooding to the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; or proceeding to final judgment. 

On May 13, 2015, the Government informed the court that it would need ninety days to 

determine which of these options to pursue.

Accordingly, the Government is ordered to file a notice informing the court of its decision 

on or before August 10, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Susan G. Braden

SUSAN G. BRADEN

Judge
#### Philip Hayes *v.*The United States.

*On the Proofs.*

*Thirty-six barrels of turpentine belonging to the claimant aire seised in Charleston and shipped to New Yorlc. Se proves that a greater quantity is sold by the Treasury agent in New York, but fails to identify his own turpentine as a part of that sold.*

Where the evidence does not show that the identical property of the claimant was sold hy the agents of the Treasury, hut does show that it was captured and shipped to New York from Charleston, and that a larger quantity of the same kind of property was sold in New York, it is sufficient to satisfy the court that the claimant's property formed a part of that sold under the *Abandoned or captured property act.*(12 Stat. L., p. 820.)

*Mr. I). 2f. CJooley*for tbe claimant.

*Mr. B. 8. Sate,*special counsel of tbe Treasury, for tbe defendants.

Milligan, J.,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

In March, 1865, tbe claimant alleges that be was tbe owner of four bales of upland cotton and thirty-six barrels of spbits of turpentine, in tbe city of Charleston, wbicb were seized by tbe *490military forces of the United States and shipped to New'York, and there sold by the Treasury agents and the proceeds paid into the Treasury of the United States.

The case presents no new question or peculiar state of facts. The claimant proves his loyalty throughout the war, and the ownership and seizure of the cotton and turpentine as avered in his petition. The cotton, under the name of the claimant, is shown to have been entered on the registration books in the Quartermaster General’s office in Charleston, and shipped with the cotton of various other persons to New York, where it was sold and the'proceeds regularly paid into the Treasury.

The record does not disclose the fact that the identical thirty-six barrels of turpentine, alleged to belong to the petitioner, were sold by the Treasury agents in New York ; but it is established beyond controversy that thirty-six barrels were seized and shipped to Colonel Yan Vliet, United States quartermaster, and one hundred and twenty-five barrels which came from Charleston were sold in New York, by order of Simeon Draper, which leaves no doubt as to the sale of the turpentine claimed in this action.

The proceeds of the cotton, four bales upland, we find to be $524 80, and the spirits of turpentine, thirty-six barrels, $1,178 72, amounting to $1,703 52, for which judgment will be entered.
EXHIBIT 13.2

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 annual report on Form 20-F of Cumberland Resources Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby 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 annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2.  The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.





Date:  June 28, 2005





/s/  Michael L. Carroll



Michael L. Carroll

Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary









A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Cumberland Resources Ltd. and will be retained by Cumberland Resources Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TEXARKANA, TEXAS

MARK J. MUELLER § Appellant § §
v. § CAUSE NO. 06-14-00100-CV § JAMES H. DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY § AND D/B/A JD MINERALS AND § JDMI, LLC § Appellee

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Appellees, James H. Davis, Individually and d/b/a JD Minerals and JDMI,

LLC requests that all notices given or required to be given in this case, and all papers served or required to be served in this case be given to and served upon their attorneys of record, Douglas D. McLallen, Sr. and their co-counsel, Marshall C.
Wood as follows: Douglas D. McLallen, Sr.

ANDERSON LEHRMAN BARRE & MARAIST, LLP

Gaslight Square 1001 Third Street, Ste. 1 Corpus Christi, Texas 78404 Fax (361) 884-1286 Email: dmclallen@albmlaw.com ACCEPTED 06-14-00100-CV SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 5/26/2015 11:09:59 AM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKMar sh al l C. Wo od Norto n & W oo d, LLP 31 5 M ai n S tre et Po stOffic e Bo x 1 80 8 Tex ark an a, Tex as 75 50 4 Fax (90 3) 82 3- 13 25 Em ai l: m ars ha ll @n orto na nd woo d.c om
This reque st encompa sses all notices, including but not limit ed to notices of any order , motions, demands, complaints, petitions, briefs, or reque sts, applications, and any other documents brought befor e this Court in this case , whether formal or informal, written or oral, or transmitted or

conveyed by mail, delivery , telephone, fac simil e, e-ma il or otherwise, which aff ect or seek to aff

ect
this case. Respectf ully submitt ed, /s/ Douglas D. McLallen, Sr. Doug las D. McL allen, Sr. State Ba r No. 00788025 ANDERSON, L EHRMAN, B ARRE & MARAI ST, L L P Gaslig ht Square 1001 Third Street, Ste. 1 Corpus Christi, Tex as 78404 (361) 884- 4981 FAX : (361) 884-1286 EMAI L : dmclallen@a lbmlaw.com
/s/ Ma rs ha ll

C. W oo d Mar sh al l C. Woo d St at e BarNo. 0 07 97 69 0 NORTON & W OOD, LL P 31 5 M ai n S tre et Po stOffic e Bo x 1 80 8 Tex ark an a, Tex as 75 50 4 (9 03 ) 82 3- 13 21 Fax (90 3) 82 3- 13 25 Em ai l: m ars ha ll @n orto na nd woo d.c om
Att or ne ys -in -Ch ar

ge fo r Ja m es H

. D av is, In di vi du al ly an d d/ b/ a JD M ine ral s and JDMI, LLCCERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE

I cert ify th at on May 26 , 20 15 , a tru e an d co rrec t co py of th e fo reg oi ng was se rv edon th e fo ll owi ng :

Mr. Bo b Whi te hu rs t V ia Em ail : whit

ehur st lawf irm @ yaho o.co m Whi te hu rs t & Whi te hu rs t 53 80 OldBu ll ardRo ad , Sui te 60 0, # 36 3 Ty le r, Texa s 7 57 03

/s / Dou glas D. McLal le n , Sr

. Dou gl as D. McLal le n, Sr

.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 accompanying Annual Report of The viaLink
Company (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert I. Noe, 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, to my knowledge, 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/ Robert I. Noe
------------------------
Robert I. Noe
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2003
EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Secure Computing Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy
J. Steinkopf, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Timothy J. Steinkopf
------------------------
Timothy J. Steinkopf
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2002
# C_2021467EN.01000401.xml

| 19.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 467/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 467/4

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/932/CFSP and Council Regulation No 1352/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Yemen apply

(2021/C 467/03)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

The legal basis for this processing operation are Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/932/CFSP (2) as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2016 (3), and Council Regulation (EU) 1352/2014 (4), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2021/2015 (5) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Yemen.

The controller of this processing operation is the Department RELEX.1.C in the Directorate-General for Foreign Affairs, Enlargement and Civil Protection - RELEX of the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC), that can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The GSC’s Data Protection Officer can be contacted at:

Data Protection Officer

data.protection@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/932 as implemented by Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2016, and Regulation (EU) 1352/2014, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2021/2015.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in Decision (CFSP) 2014/932 and Regulation (EU) 1352/2014.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the statement of reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Without prejudice to any judicial, administrative or non-judicial remedy, data subjects may lodge a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (edps@edps.europa.eu).

---

(1)  OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 365, 19.12.2014, p. 147.

(3)  OJ L 410 I, 18.11.2021, p. 7.

(4)  OJ L 365, 19.12.2014, p. 60.

(5)  OJ L 410 I, 18.11.2021, p. 1.

---
#### PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK INSTITUTION FOR THE BLIND, Respondent, v. FITCH, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 22, 1896.)

Proceeding on the relation of the New York Institution for the Blind against Ashbel P. Fitch, comptroller. T. E. Hancock, for appellant. J. M. Bowers, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion of the court below. See 39 N. Y. Supp. 926.