alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellant,

v.

JAMARLIN HUNTLEY , Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2332

[ January 6, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Marina Garcia

- Wood , Judge; L.T. Case No. 18

- 3773 CF10A

.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and David John McPherrin, Assistant Pu blic Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
The state appeals an order granting the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. 1 To prove the charged offense of child abuse, the state was required to prove that (1) the defendant committ ed “[a]n intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to” K.H., and (2) that K.H. was under 18. See §§ 827.01(2), 827.03(1)(b) 2. , Fla. Stat. (2017). On the entirely circumstantial evidence before us as to the c ommission of the act , we cannot conclude that the defendant committed an intentional act without impermissibly stacking inferences. See generally Graham v. State , 748 So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“ An impermissible pyramiding of inferences occurs where

1 The trial court granted the motion for judgment of acquittal after a jury verdict but without polling the jury. We have jurisdiction because “the order of acquittal was granted after the jury had deliberated and returned a verdict to the trial court

on a ll charges.” See State v. Pickersgill , 284 So. 3d 542, 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019), review denied , SC19

- 2142, 2020 WL 3549917 (Fla. June 30, 2020) ; see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.450.2 at least two inferences in regard to the existence of a criminal act must be drawn from the evidence and then stacked to prove the crime charged; in that scenario, it is said that the evidence lacks th e conclusive nature to support a conviction. ”). I n light of Bush v. State , 295 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 2020), we are aware that the jurisprudence regarding inference stacking may evolve

, but at this point we are bound to follow the dictates of precedent. Accord ingly, we affirm.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS , C IKLIN , JJ., and B ELL , C AROLYN , Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2009173EN.01000502.xml

| 25.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5551 — F2i/Finavias/ERG)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 173/03

On 22 July 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5551. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5551. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 of CFO Consultants, Inc. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.  Very truly yours,   /s/ Norm LeBeoufNorm LeBeoufChief Executive Officer/s/ Norm LeBeoufNorm LeBeoufChief Financial OfficerDated: May 7, 2010   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to CFO Consultants, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,941-01

EX PARTE DONALD CHASSTION, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1220013-A IN THE 228 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of

cocaine and sentenced to 30 days’ incarceration in the County Jail. TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.44(a).

Applicant contends that newly discovered laboratory analysis in this case reflects that he did

not possess any cocaine. 

The State and trial court agree that Applicant is entitled to relief. Applicant’s claim is

supported by the habeas record. Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Mable, 443 S.W.3d 129
2

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 1220013 in the 228 District Court of Harris th

County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Harris County to

answer the charges as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench

warrant within 10 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: July 1, 2015

Do not publish
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:01-cr-00046-MP

CHARLES BRENNEN,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 33, Motion for Reduction of Sentence and Doc.

36, a letter to the Court. In the motion at Doc. 33, Mr. Brennen asks the Court to retroactively

apply what he calls "the new 1-to-1 ratio of crack vs. cocaine." He does not specify where this

ratio comes from, but the Court assumes he refers to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L.

No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010), and Amendment 748 to the United States Sentencing

Guidelines, which mandated an 18-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine penalties, to

replace the 100-to-1 ratio then existing. 

As an initial matter, neither the Fair Sentencing Act nor Amendment 748 apply

retroactively, See United States v. Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir.2010) (per

curiam)(amendments in the Fair Sentencing Act do not apply to crimes committed before the

FSA was enacted in August 2010); and United States Sentencing Guidelines Proposed

Amendments

http://www.ussc.gov/Legal/Federal_Register_Notices/20110428_FR_Final_Amendments.pdf

(sending the proposed amendment to Congress on April 28, 2011). 

Case 1:01-cr-00046-MP Document 41 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Additionally, in the order at Doc. 28, the Court sua sponte addressed the issue of whether

Guidelines Amendments 706 and 711, which were made retroactive, should apply to Mr.

Brennen. The Court stated:

Here, the Defendant escaped a mandatory life sentence by obtaining a substantial

assistance motion. His original sentence, 120 months, was below the bottom of

the original guidelines range (151), and represented the Court’s discretion as to an

appropriate sentence once the Court was freed from the statutory mandatory

minimum and the Guidelines by the substantial assistance motion. Accordingly,

no reduction of Mr. Brennen’s sentence under Amendments 706 and 711 is

appropriate.

The Court adheres to the above conclusion. The 120 month sentence represented the Court’s

discretion as to an appropriate sentence once the Court was freed from the statutory mandatory

minimum and the Guidelines. Accordingly, even if Amendment 748 of 2010 (later Amendment

2 of 2011) were made retroactive, the Court would not be inclined to reduce Mr. Brennen’s

sentence.

Also pending is Doc. 36, in which Mr. Brennen asks the Court "to use your influence to

get me moved to a medium institution or a fallout yard like Coleman 2 usp." The matter of

designation is within the province of the Bureau of Prisons and thus the request for court

intervention is denied.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Motion for Reduction of Sentence, Doc. 33, is denied.

The letter at Doc. 36, construed as a motion, is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of May, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:01-cr-00046-MP

Case 1:01-cr-00046-MP Document 41 Filed 05/04/11 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 94-2471.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Kenneth ADAMS, a/k/a Christopher Hale, a/k/a Kenneth Gutheil,

a/k/a Marvin Neighborgall; Judith Adams, a/k/a Jennifer Moore,

a/k/a Theresa Cornell, a/k/a Judith Gutheil, Defendants-Appellees.

March 2, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Florida. (No. 93-225-CR-T-15C), Henry Lee Adams, Jr.,

Judge.

Before BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and RONEY, Senior Circuit

Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The Government challenges on this appeal the suppression of

certain evidence seized in the search of a motor home at the time

of the arrest of defendants Kenneth Adams and his wife Judith. We

affirm.

The search and subsequent seizure occurred at a time when

state and federal law enforcement officers assembled to arrest

defendants on numerous state and federal charges arising in part

from the alleged fraudulent registration of two motor vehicles and

the falsification of various identification documents. In a

multi-count superseding indictment, the defendant and his wife were

charged with, among other things, obtaining a driver's license by

using a false Social Security number in violation of 42 U.S.C. §

408(a)(7)(B).

We affirm the suppression of evidence in this case without

reaching any broad issues that would help define the dichotomy
concerning the search of motor homes. The law regarding whether to

apply to motor homes the established search and seizure principles

applicable to motor vehicles, or those applicable to fixed places

of residence has not been developed. This is not an appropriate

case for setting any precedent in this regard.

Reviewing the entire unusual circumstances and the peculiar

factual situation in this case, we cannot hold that the district

court erred in suppressing the evidence in this case. But for the

implication that this decision might inadvertently be interpreted

to carry some weight as this area of the law develops, we would

have affirmed the judgment below under our Rule 36.1, Rules of the

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JACK ANDREW PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-134-RS-GRJ

WARDEN, FCI MARIANNA,

Defendant.

____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On July 17, 2013, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause before August 6,

2013, as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 12.) 

The Order was returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 13.) The Federal Bureau of Prisons’

inmate locator website reflects that Petitioner was released from custody on February

28, 2013. Petitioner has not yet filed a change of address with the Court despite his

release from custody last year. Because Petitioner is no longer in custody, he has

achieved all of the relief which he requested in the Petition and to which he would have

been entitled had this Court granted his petition. The action is therefore moot unless

there are collateral consequences that arise from Petitioner’s conviction. Minor v.

Dugger, 864 F.2d 124, 125 (11 Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). th

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed for
Page 2 of 2

failure to prosecute. 

IN CHAMBERS, at Gainesville, Florida, this 6 day of August 2013. th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being

served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of

proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No: 5:11-cv-134-RS-GRJ
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 39 02

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e
v. Jo an na Rae Du ng y ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa- Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: May 4, 20 16 Fil ed : M ay

9, 2 01 6 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BOW MAN, an d M URPHY, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.
Jo an na Rae Dun gy di rect ly ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t rev ok in g he r 1 su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d se nt en ci ng he r to t w o m on th s in pr is on an d th ree y ears of
The Hon or ab le Ro be rt W

. Prat t, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1 Dis tri ctof I owa .su pe rv is ed rel eas e wit h a sp eci al c o n d i t i o n th at sh e res id e in a res id en ti al re-e nt ry

pr og ram fo r up to 12 0 da y s fo ll owi ng he r i n c a r c e rat io n. On ap pe al , Dun gy arg ue s th at th e co ur t la ck ed st atut ory au th or it y to or de r pl acement in th e res id en ti al re-e nt ry pr og ram an d t ha t t he co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n i m po si ng th is co nd it io n. Afte r care fu l rev ie w, th is co ur t affi r ms . See 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (d ) (co ur t m ay or de r sp eci al rel eas e co nd it io n th at is reas on ab ly rel at ed to 18 U.S

. C

. § 35 53 (a) fact or s, in vo lv es no gre at er d ep riv at io n o f li be rty tha n re as on ab ly neces sa ry , a nd is co ns is te nt wit h po li cy st at em en ts ); Un i t e d S t at es v. W ie do wer, 63 4 F.3 d 49 0, 49 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (co ur t ha s br oa d di sc ret io n whe n im po si ng rel eas e co nd it io ns ; whe n craf ti ng sp eci al co nd it io n, co ur t m us t m ak e in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry in to fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces un de rlyin g cas e an d m ak e su ffi ci en t fin di ng s on reco rd so as to en su re co nd it io n s at is fie s s ta tu to ry req ui rem en ts ).
The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed , andco un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is gra nt ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
Exhibit 3.3

                                      DEED

I, Roderick M. Forrest, a Director of Glengarry Holdings Limited (the
"Company"), a company incorporated in Bermuda and having its registered office
at Bermuda Commercial Bank Building, 44 Church Street, Hamilton HM12, Bermuda,
pursuant to the authority of a resolution of the board of directors of the
Company of 31 January 2001 and of the shareholders of the Company of 31 January
2001 hereby declare that, with effect from 16 February 2001, the share capital
of the Company shall be consolidated, pursuant to section 45(1)(c) of the
Companies Act 1981, whereby the common shares of the Company, having a par value
of USS.005 each shall be consolidated into shares having par value US$.05 each,
the result of which being that the Company shall have an authorised share
capital of US$2,750,000 comprising 50,000,000 common shares of par value US$.05
each and 50,000,000 preferred shares of par value US$.005 each.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF this deed is executed by Roderick M. Forrest as of the 6th
day of February 2001 as follows:

Signed at Hamilton, Bermuda, before Patricia Colmet, Bermuda Commercial Bank
Building, 44 Church Street, Hamilton, Bermuda.

/s/ Roderick M.Forrest

/s/ Patricia Colmet
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, U.S.-India Bilateral Collaborative Research Partnerships (CRP) on the Prevention of HIV/AIDS (R21).                    

*Date:*                         January 24, 2008.                    

*Time:*                         9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 3133, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sujata Vijh, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-594-0985,                         *vijhs@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 26, 2007.

Anna Snouffer, 

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-6271 Filed 1-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6 and 404.7, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the invention set forth in U.S. Patent Application No. 10/631,218 entitled “A Coherent Radar and Ladar Polarimeter,” filed on July 25, 2003. The United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army, has rights in this invention.

# ADDRESSES:

Office of Research and Technology Applications, SDMC-RDTC-TDL (Ms. Susan D. McRae), Bldg. 5220, Von Braun Complex, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Joan Gilsdorf, Patent Attorney, e-mail:                         *joan.gilsdorf@smdc.army.mil*                         (256) 955-3213 or Ms. Susan D. McRae, Office of Research and Technology Applications, e-mail:                         *susan.mcrae@smdc.army.mil;*                         (256) 955-1501.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The invention pertains to determining the state of polarization of an electromagnetic signal. A polarimeter includes a receiver that receives a first polarization (P1) of the signal and splits the first polarization of the signal into the in-phase (IP1) and quadrature (QP1) components, and receives a second poplarization (P2) of the signal and splits the second polarization of the signal into the in-phase (IP1) and quadrature (QP2) components. The polarimeter may also include a processor that receives each of the in-phase and quadrature components ((IP1), (QP1), (IP2), and (QP2)) of the first and second polarizations and determines the Stokes polarization vector components (s0, s1, s2, and s3) of the signal.                

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 07-851  Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
# C_2009227EN.01003101.xml

| 22.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/31

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5601 — RREEF FUND, UFG/SAGGAS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 227/13

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

On 26 August 2009, the Commission of the European Communities received notification of a proposed concentration between RREEF FUND, UFG and SAGGAS. On 16 September 2009, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.

---