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

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3819

_____________________________
S HAKEYNA F OSTER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Edward P. Nickinson, III , Judge

. June 13, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. Appellant, Shakeyna Foster, challenges her conviction and sentence for possession of over 20 grams of cannabis following a no contest plea where she reserved her right to appea l the denial of a dispositive motion to suppress. Nine pounds of marijuana were found in the common area of Appellant’s residence after law enforcement entered the residence to serve arrest warrant s on two brothers who law enforcement believed to be stayi ng there. Because the law enforc e ment officers reasonably believed the subject s of the arrest warrant s w ere present in Appellant’s residence, the officers were allowed to enter the residence. Payton v. New York , 445 U.S. 573 , 602

- 03 (1980) ; § 901.19(1) , Fla. Stat. (2016). After they entered the residence, the officers were2 permitted to conduct a protective sweep per Maryland v. Buie
, 494 U.S. 325 , 334

- 36 (1990 )

.
A FFIRMED

.
W OLF , B ILBREY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Robin B. Rogers, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attor ney General, Tabitha Herrera and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
USDA
Authority


                             SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT
                          FOR CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES IN
                            U.S. DATA AUTHORITY, INC.


         The undersigned  agrees to subscribe to a convertible  debenture in the
amount of $50,000  (U.S.).  This debenture will bear interest at the rate of 10%
per annum from the date of issue.  It will be convertible to preferred  stock at
any time at the rate of $0.20 per share.  The preferred  stock shall have voting
rights equal to 10x the common  stock  voting  rights per share for 3 years from
the date of issue.  After three years, the preferred shares shall  automatically
convert to common  shares with the same rights and  privileges  as the  existing
Section 144 stock.

         This offer is subject to the approval of the Board of Directors.

         This  subscription  should be  accompanied  by the payment of funds and
received by the company by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 15, 2001.

         BY  EXECUTING  BELOW,  THE  UNDERSIGNED  REPRESENTS  THAT  HE/SHE IS AN
ACCREDITED  INVESTOR,  AND AGREES TO COMPLETED  ALL NECESSARY  DOCUMENTATION  TO
SUPPORT THIS REPRESENTATION.


Dated:  2-15-01                                /s/David P. Lonski
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Print Name: David P. Lonski
                                               Address:
                                                        ------------------------
                                               SSN/TIN:
                                                        ------------------------











            3500 NW Boca Raton Boulevard, Building 811 * Boca Raton,
                 Florida 33431 * Tel (561) 368-0032 * Fax (561)
                             395-5425 * www.usda.net
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                          28,468
<SECURITIES>                                 4,910,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    115,785
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,244,404
<PP&E>                                      10,457,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                 445,020
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,331,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          669,950
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,750
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,484,602
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,331,693
<SALES>                                      4,338,832
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,338,832
<CGS>                                        1,584,483
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,336,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               874,498
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             341,863
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (703,592)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (703,592)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (703,592)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
#### White, et al v. Garrison.

(Decided May 18, 1911.)

Appeal from Clay Circuit Court.

Rand — Patent Line — Location—The judgment of the 'Chancellor locating the line of a patent will not he disturbed on doubtful evi- " dence.

'SC'OTT & HAMILTON, D. W. WHITE and T. H. WEBB for. appellant.

lA. D. HAÍDL, 1S1AM C. HsABDIN for appellee.

Opinion op the CouRt by

Chief Justice Hobson

Affirming.

In 1793 a patent was issued to James Monroe for 20,-000 acres of land in what is now Clay County, and the only question to he determined on this appeal is the ■proper location of the southern boundary line of this patent. Lnoy G. Garrison holds under other patents subsequent to the James Monroe patent lying south' of it and calling for its southern line. The appellants-, T. G. White, C. R. White and G. W. Price hold under the Monroe patent, and show no title beyond its calls. The circuit court located the south line of the Monroe patent *717north of where it is claimed by appellants to-be located. The appeal presents simply a question of fact. We have read with care the large record before us; and conclude that while the testimony is conflicting, the decided-weight of the testimony is with the judgment of the circuit court. We give some weight to the finding of the circuit court on a question of fact turning on the credibility of the witnesses, but aside from.this rule we are of opinion here, that the circumstances shown by the testimony for appellee, establishes the location of the Monroe line as adjudged by the circuit court, • ', .

Judgment affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

J.P.W., JR.,

Respondent

v.

A.N.H.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 465 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of January, 2016, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this

matter.
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

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Director, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR), with authority to redelegate, the authority to:
    - Release small quantities of any material from the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) to provide intervention for specific individual conditions and the coordination of transportation assets to meet required deadlines.
    - Release small quantities of any material from the SNS for testing and evaluation or to support government-required programs of vaccinations for persons at risk for specific conditions as a result of government job requirements.
    - Advance deploy any material from the SNS to remain under CDC control without release to other government or non-government organizations in order to prepare for possible response needs
    - Release any material from the SNS to comply with requirements as set forth by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 21 to share stockpiled assets with other federal government organizations when the material will be replaced by the receiving organization.

This delegation became effective upon date of signature. I hereby affirm and ratify any actions taken by the Director, OPHPR, which involve the exercise of these authorities prior to the effective date of this delegation.

Dated: April 26, 2010.

Thomas Frieden,

Director, CDC.

[FR Doc. 2010-11406 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-18-M
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Remanded by Supreme Court March 4, 2002

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. STEVEN LEE WHITEHEAD

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County

No. 99-152 Roy B. Morgan, Jr., Judge

No. W2002-00484-CCA-RM-CD - Filed June 27, 2002

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J., dissenting.

Because I have no difficulty concluding that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury

on sexual battery constitutes harmless error according to the standard enunciated in State v. Allen,

69 S.W.3d 181, 191 (Tenn. 2002), I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s reversal of the

appellant’s convictions of rape. As acknowledged by the majority, our supreme court emphasized
-2-

in Allen that, “[w]hen a lesser-included offense instruction is improperly omitted, . . . the harmless

error inquiry is the same as for other constitutional errors” and entails an examination of both the

evidence adduced at trial and the defendant’s theory of defense. Id. As also acknowledged by the

majority, RB unequivocally testified at trial that the appellant’s sexual assault upon her included

three separate acts of sexual penetration, and her testimony was uncontradicted with the exception

of the appellant’s statements to the police denying any sexual activity whatsoever between himself

and RB. In other words, the appellant’s defense in this case did not hinge upon the nature of the

sexual activity between himself and RB but rather upon whether any sexual activity occurred.

Accordingly, with respect to the evidence underlying each count of rape, the appellant was either

guilty of the charged offense or entirely innocent. Under these circumstances, the trial court’s failure

to instruct the jury on sexual battery should not afford the appellant relief.

I note with interest the majority’s quotation of the following language from Allen,

69 S.W.3d at 189: “The jury is not required to believe any evidence offered by the State. . . . We

therefore cannot agree that the decision to convict on a lesser-included offense may be taken away

from the jury whenever proof supporting the element distinguishing the greater offense from the

lesser offense is uncontroverted.” I also note that the majority extracted this language from that

portion of the supreme court’s decision addressing the issue of when a trial court should instruct a

jury on lesser-included offenses and not from that portion of the opinion addressing the issue of

when a trial court’s failure to do so constitutes harmless error. In short, I believe that the majority

has overlooked a critical distinction between those two issues, and I cannot join in the result thereby

achieved.
-3-

___________________________________ 

NORMA McGEE OGLE, JUDGE
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael J. Shea, Senior Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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, that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Hooper Holmes, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Hooper Holmes, Inc.

Dated: June 29, 2006



/s/ Michael J. SheaMichael J. SheaSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer


This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to Hooper Holmes, Inc. and will be retained by Hooper Holmes, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 1,925.

#### HARRIS, Administrator, Appellant, *v.*ROOT et al., Respondents.

*Appeal from District Gourb, Silver Bow Gounty; E. W.*Harney, *Judge.*

On application for an injunction, and on motion for a stay.

Decided March 30, 1903.

*Mr. E. N.*Harwood, *and Mr. John*Lindsay, for Appellant.

*Mr. Charles B. Leonard/*and *Mr. M. S. Gunn,*for Respondents.

Pee Curiam.

— The application for an injunction herein, and the motion to stay the *remittitur*in cause numbered 1,799, entitled *In re Davis’*Estate, *Leyson et al.*v. *Root et al.*(27 Mont. 490, 71 Pac. 757), is hereby denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               25809
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     25809
<PP&E>                                              120878
<DEPRECIATION>                                       10189
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      505371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               171944
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             84018
<OTHER-SE>                                          249409
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        505371
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      1992
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    105163
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (103171)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
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.                  

###### National Council on Disability

# Dates and Times:

May 13, 2010, 9 a.m.-4:45 p.m.

May 14, 2010, 8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.

# Place:

Key Bridge Marriott, 1401 Lee Highway, Arlington, VA.

# Status:

Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public.

# Matters to be Considered:

National Summit on Disability Policy 2010.

# Portions Open to the Public:

Thursday, May 13, 2010, 9 a.m.-4:45 p.m.

# Matters to be Considered:

Closed Executive Session.

# Portions Closed to the Public:

Friday, May 14, 2010, 8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Mark Quigley, Director of Communications, NCD, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004, 202-272-2074 (TTY).

Dated: May 4, 2010.

Joan M. Durocher,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2010-11392 Filed 5-10-10; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-MA-P
1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3909

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Juan Mojica-Almaguer, also known as *

Andres Perez-Perez, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Jose Dejesus Hurtado, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 4, 2006

Filed: December 7, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Mojica-Almaguer appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after a

jury found him guilty of illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). He argues that the district court erred at sentencing in refusing to grant a

2-level reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. We reject this

argument and affirm Mojica-Almaguer’s sentence.
-2-

The district court’s finding--that Mojica-Almaguer’s case was not one of the

rare cases when an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction is appropriate for a

defendant who has gone to trial--is not “so clearly erroneous as to be without

foundation.” See United States v. Card, 390 F.3d 592, 594-95 (8th Cir. 2004)

(standard of review). Mojica-Almaguer put the government to its burden of proof at

trial, cross-examined witnesses, contested evidence, and moved for a judgment of

acquittal on the basis that the government had failed to establish one of the factual

elements of the charged crime. See United States v. Cordero, 465 F.3d 626, 631-32

(5th Cir. 2006) (affirming denial of reduction for accepting responsibility where

defendant, in addition to moving to suppress evidence against him, did not stipulate

to all evidence necessary for conviction and instead put government to its burden of

proof, and moved for judgment of acquittal at end of trial on grounds that government

failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt); United States v. Stuart, 923 F.2d

607, 613 (8th Cir. 1991) (statements made by defendant acknowledging his guilt

during presentence interview and during allocution at sentencing did not entitle him

to reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility). We also reject MojicaAlmaguer’s argument that U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 punishes a defendant for exercising his

constitutional right to trial. See United States v. Smith, 40 F.3d 933, 935 (8th Cir.

1994).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
**EXHIBIT 32.1**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officerof JAKKS Pacific, Inc. (“Registrant”), herebycertifies that the Registrant’s Annual Report onForm 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatthe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.Date: March 15, 2006     /s/ Jack Friedman           JACK FRIEDMAN *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer*
89