alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JOHN BRADFORD,

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. 1D16-3113

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 16, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public

Defender, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney 

General, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
STATE v. SWANSON

No. COA04-1350.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Craven (92CRS4438, 92CRS439).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Samuel D. RICHARDSON.

No. 358P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Samuel Richardson, Pro Se.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 7th day of July 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th day of August 2005."
STATE v. Michael E. LEWIS.

No. 322P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th day of June 2005 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 18th day of August 2005."
STATE v. Delauno Montrez COREY.

No. 539P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 30, 2005.

Geoffrey W. Hosford, Wilmington, for Delauno Montrez Corey.

Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th day of September 2005 by Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of September 2005."
STATE of North Carolina v. Cornelius TUCKER, Jr.

No. 118P01-13.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 3, 2005.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th day of February 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari/motion to vacate to review the order of the Superior Court, Forsyth County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of March 2005."
#### Michael Duffy et al., Appellants, v Christa St. Germain, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 48]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant breached a contract for the purchase of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated April 29, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and for the return of her down payment, and denied their cross motion for summary judgment and to retain the down payment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant did not breach the subject contract and is entitled to the return of her down payment.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). She demonstrated that she signed a contract to purchase the subject real property, on which a new home was to be built, conditioned upon her obtaining a mortgage commitment within 30 days of the date of the contract. The defendant further demonstrated that she timely obtained that commitment, which subsequently expired through no fault of her own, due to the plaintiffs’ delays in constructing the subject home. In good faith, the defendant reapplied for a new mortgage, but was unable to obtain one due to changes in *873her personal and financial circumstances. Pursuant to the express terms of the contract, the defendant was entitled to a full refund of her down payment *(see Long v Legg,*264 AD2d 718, 719 [1999]; *Berholtz v Georgiou,*184 AD2d 677 [1992]; *Flaherty v Fiber Constr. Corp.,*149 AD2d 655 [1989]). In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Thus, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment and the return of her down payment.

The defendant’s contention regarding interest is an issue appropriately addressed in the first instance in the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Since this action, in part, seeks a declaratory judgment, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant did not breach the subject contract, and is entitled to the return of her down payment *(see Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962]; *appeal dismissed*371 US 74 [1962], *cert denied*371 US 901 [1962]). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Cozier and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JAMES A. BLAKE NO. 

### 2023 KW 0949
OCTOBER 

### 13, 

### 2023

In Re: 

### State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs,



### 20th Judicial District Court, Parish of West Feliciana, No. 

### 23-WFLN-41.
BEFORE: WELCH, HOLDRIDGE,, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. JEW GH Wolfe, J., 

### dissents and would grant the writ application. The defendant bears the burden 

## of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence 

### in non -homicide cases 

## involving self-defense. See State v. Cheatham, 

### 38, 413 ( La. 

## App. 2nd Cir. 6/23/04), 

### 877 So.2d 164, 172- 73, writ 

### denied, 

### 2004-2224 ( La. 

### 6/24/ 05), 

### 904 So. 2d 717. in non -homicide cases where self-defense is raised, a
1,

## ua.1 inquiry --,. s required; " an objective 

## inquiry into whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances; and subjective 

## inquiry into wnether the 

### force used was apparently 

### necessary." See State v. Freeman, 427 

### So. 2d 1161, 1163 ( La. 

### 1983). if 

### the burden of persuasion , on was placed on the State t.o C' disprove the subjective Lve 

### influences, the State would bear an onerous burden " since ` Lt would only be the defendant who 

### has these 

### facts at 

### his disposal S. fDOsal to produce to the court." See Cheatham, 

### 877 So.2d at 17-3).
STATE v. MORGAN.

COA02-1466.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 3, 2004.

Certification Date August 23, 2004.

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                            MARINE EXPLORATION, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the annual report on
Form 10-K of Marine Exploration, Inc. for the period ending June 30, 2008:

          (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     Marine Exploration, Inc.




/s/ Miguel Thomas Gonzalez
--------------------------
Miguel Thomas Gonzalez
Chief Executive Officer
September 29, 2008


 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Marine Exploration, Inc. and
will be retained by Marine Exploration, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission upon request.


<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5162 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5162

   To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used in the 
                        production of textiles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2008

Mr. Brady of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used in the 
                        production of textiles.

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

SECTION 1. CHEMICAL USED IN THE PRODUCTION OF TEXTILES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       4,11-               Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          Triphenodioxazine                                                  31/2011.......
                          disulfonic acid,
                          6,13-dichloro-
                          3,10-bis[[2-[[4-
                          fluoro-6-[(2-
                          sulfophenyl)amino
                          ]-1,3,5-triazin-2-
                          yl]amino]propyl]a
                          mino]-, lithium
                          sodium salt (CAS
                          No. 163062-28-0)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3204.16.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. Jeffrey Neal DUKE.

No. 57A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2005.

William N. Farrell, Jr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, Mikko Red Arrow, G. Patrick Murphy, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael K. Lands, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th day of April 2005 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed until May 4, 2005. Defendant (Duke) shall have up to and Including the 4th day of May 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of April 2005."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5245 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5245

           To suspend temporarily the duty on acid black 107.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2008

   Mr. Watt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on acid black 107.

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

SECTION 1. ACID BLACK 107.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.61 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to acid black 107) is amended 
by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

**Hospira, Inc.**

** **

**Computationof Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**

** **

**(Unaudited)**

** **

***(dollars in millions except ratios)***

*** ***

| ** **                                                     | ** ** | **Six  Months  Ended  June 30,  2008** | ** ** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------------|------------|
| Income from Continuing Operations Before  Taxes                |       | $                                           | 173.9      |   |
| Add:                                                           |       |                                        |       |
| One-third of rents                                             |       | 4.3                                         |       |
| Interest on long-term and short-term debt                      |       | 59.6                                        |       |
| Interest capitalized, net of amortization                      |       | 2.0                                         |       |
|                                                           |       |                                        |       |
| Earnings from Continuing Operations                            |       | $                                           | 239.8      |   |
|                                                           |       |                                        |       |
| Fixed charges:                                                 |       |                                        |       |
| One-third of rents                                             |       | $                                           | 4.3        |   |
| Interest on long-term and short-term debt                      |       | 59.6                                        |       |
| Interest capitalized                                           |       | 4.4                                         |       |
|                                                           |       |                                        |       |
| Fixed Charges from Continuing Operations                       |       | $                                           | 68.3       |   |
|                                                           |       |                                        |       |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges from  Continuing Operations |       | 3.5                                         |       |

 

For purposes of computingthis ratio, “earnings” consist of income from continuing operations beforetaxes, one-third of rents (deemed by Hospira to be representative of theinterest factor inherent in rents), interest expense and interest capitalized,net of amortization. “Fixed charges” consist of one-third of rents, interestexpense and interest capitalized.

 

 

----
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 New York Mortgage Trust, Inc, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: August 4, 2010

/s/ Steven R. MummaSteven R. Mumma

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.19

             SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH ALL DIRECTORS

         The following summarizes the current compensation and benefits received
by the Company's directors. It is intended to be a summary of existing
arrangements, and is in no way intended to provide any additional rights to any
director.

Retainer Fees

         As of January 1, 2005, the non-executive chairman of the Board of
Directors will be paid $30,000 per annum.

Meeting Fees

         All directors receive $1,000 attendance fee for attendance at each
Board meeting.

Equity Compensation

         None.

Reimbursement of Expenses

         All directors are entitled to reimbursement of expenses for all
services as a director.
# L_2023030EN.01003601.xml

| 2.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 30/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 30/36

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1199 of 22 July 2016 amending Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 as regards operational approval of performance-based navigation, certification and oversight of data services providers and helicopter offshore operations, and correcting that Regulation

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 198 of 23 July 2016
  )

On page 27, in point (4)(c) of the Annex, in the added Subpart K of Annex V to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012:

for:

‘SPA.HOFO.145 Flight data monitoring (FDM) system

| (a) | When conducting CAT operations with a helicopter equipped with a flight data recorder, the operator shall establish and maintain a FDM system, as part of its integrated management system, by 1 January 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

When conducting CAT operations with a helicopter equipped with a flight data recorder, the operator shall establish and maintain a FDM system, as part of its integrated management system, by 1 January 2019.

| (b) | The FDM system shall be non-punitive and contain adequate safeguards to protect the source(s) of the data.’, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

The FDM system shall be non-punitive and contain adequate safeguards to protect the source(s) of the data.’,

read:

‘SPA.HOFO.145 Flight data monitoring (FDM) programme

| (a) | When conducting CAT operations with a helicopter equipped with a flight data recorder, the operator shall establish and maintain a FDM programme, as part of its integrated management system, by 1 January 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

When conducting CAT operations with a helicopter equipped with a flight data recorder, the operator shall establish and maintain a FDM programme, as part of its integrated management system, by 1 January 2019.

| (b) | The FDM programme shall be non-punitive and contain adequate safeguards to protect the source(s) of the data.’. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

The FDM programme shall be non-punitive and contain adequate safeguards to protect the source(s) of the data.’.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth
in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Frederic H. Moll, M.D., in his capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of Hansen Medical, Inc., hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (i) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Hansen Medical, Inc.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 16, 2009



/s/ FREDERIC H. MOLL, M.D.Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Hansen Medical, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or
after the date of the Form 10-Q/A), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
STATE v. MASSENBURG.

No. COA05-10.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
80 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

NEW MEXICO 

#33 

$3.3 B SPENT IN 

#15

2.9% OF STATE GDP

0.6%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

$1,547

PER RESIDENT 

#34

$1.8 B CONTRACT 

#31

24,553 NUMBER OF 

#29

$1.5 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Supplies and Construction: 10%

Equipment: 19%

Research and

Development: 21% Service: 50%

By Service 

Army

26%

Navy/Marines

3%

Air Force

59%

Other Defense

13%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 4%

National 

Guard: 16%

Active Duty: 51%

Civilian: 28%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

26%

Navy/Marines

2%

Air Force

71%

Other Defense

2%

Top Defense Contractors 

Applied Research Associates

Rhino Health LLC

Fluor Corp.

Southwest Range Services

M1 Support Services

Crew Training International, Inc.

SGS

Boeing

Hensel Phelps Construction

Sierra Nevada Corp.

(M = millions)

$138.7 M

$126.0 M

$105.7 M

$69.4 M

$67.6 M

$53.4 M

$44.9 M

$38.4 M

$35.5 M

$34.8 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$4.8

$2.7 $2.2 $2.1 $2.0 $2.3

FY18

$2.1

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

$1.8

FY19 FY20 FY21

$1.5 BILLION 24,553

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Bernalillo 3,430 3,306 1,371

Curry 4,742 511 56

Otero 4,144 957 55 

Doña Ana 292 1,732 553 

Santa Fe ND 235 559 

Sandoval 0 37 663

Chaves ND 13 171 

Valencia 0 ND 174 

San Juan ND ND 104 

Rio Arriba 0 12 56

Reserve

647

33 

91 

113 

210 

0 

ND 

0 

0 

0 

Total

8,754

5,342

5,247

2,690

ND 

700 

ND 

ND 

ND 

68
(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

NEW MEXICO FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

Rio Arriba

Curry

Valencia

Chaves

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

Sandoval McKinley Santa Fe

Los Alamos

Bernalillo Quay

Curry

Socorro

Otero

Doña Ana

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions)

Bernalillo

Otero

Doña Ana

McKinley

Curry

Santa Fe

Quay

Socorro

Sandoval

Los Alamos

(M = millions)

$697.8 M

$366.2 M

$295.0 M

$139.3 M

$101.7 M

$39.2 M

$34.8 M

$27.2 M

$13.9 M

$10.1 M

Bernalillo

Curry

Otero

Doña Ana

Santa Fe

Sandoval

Chaves

Valencia

Rio Arriba

Socorro

$585.6 M

$322.6 M

$315.7 M

$180.6 M

$52.4 M

$18.3 M

$5.6 M

$4.1 M

$4.0 M

$3.5 M

Sandoval Santa Fe

Bernalillo

Socorro

Otero

Doña Ana

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 81

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS