alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INDIVIDUAL PREPARATION CHECKLISTS

Make a Plan - Identify your risk - use county resources

Consider location, Storm Surge, Construction, Preparations

Miami Dade: Website and Surge Zone Mapping

Broward: Website and Evacuation Map and Surge Zones

Other resources: http://readysouthflorida.org; http://floridadisaster.org

If not evacuating: Identify the safe room in your house and create kit

Talk the plan over with your family and rehearse your plan.

Consider family members with special needs.

Consider your pets and have a plan for them.

Inform your relatives and supervisor of your evacuation plan.

Emergency Communication

Information (ph and email-hard copy):

Family

Doctor

School

Work

Insurance company

Cell phone, extra battery and chargers

AM/FM Radio

Medical Needs

Medications and copies of prescriptions

Refill prescriptions 

Extra eyeglasses/contact lenses

first aid kit

Anyone with special medical needs?

Critical Documents and waterproof container

Photo ID

Cash(!) and credit cards

Personal records

medical records

financial info (bank acct#s/credit card#s)

Tools and Safety items

Flashlight

multipurpose tool

matches/lighter

whistle

Food Supplies

Water - one gallon per person, per day (3-day supply for 

evacuation, 2-week supply for home)

Food - non-perishable, easy-to-prepare items

Infants? 

Pets?
INDIVIDUAL PREPARATION 

CHECKLISTS

Hygiene and Sanitation

Soap/disinfectant/sanitizer

Paper towels/moist towelettes

Toilet paper

bleach

toothbrush and toothpaste

Protective Gear and clothing

Sleeping bags

insulating mat

personal clothing

IF I MUST EVACUATE UNEXPECTEDLY:

 :Shelter Location

Have small emergency "go bag" with papers and meds

Prepare where you live

Install shutters if needed

Bring in outdoor furniture, antennas/satellite dish

Remove or Secure garbage cans

Locate the turn off valves to your utilities (gas)

Place your disaster supplies kit in your safe room

Fill bathtub and pails with water (to flush toilets/wash)

Turn Refrigerator/freezer to coldest setting- and have test if lost 

power (e.g., coin on icecube)

If you are evacuating/going elsewhere

Know where you are going and evac routes - let someone else 

know too

Let someone know when you arrive

Challenges and Safety after the storm

Water contamination - know how to sanitize water 

(https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinkingwater/emergency-disinfection-drinking-water) or have safe 

supply. 

Shortage of food and supplies - stock up on extra supplies early

Use caution when driving. Watch out for flood streets, missing 

trafficlights/stop signs. Stop at all intersections for safety

Do not drive through standing water

Do not grill indoors

Do not use a generator in door or near air vents or windows

Keep receipts on all repairs, take photos of damage if possible

Contact relatives and your supervisor with your status
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10701

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUNIOR MARTIN HERNANDEZ-REGALADO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:16-CR-160-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Junior Martin 

Hernandez-Regalado has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez-Regalado has filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein, as well as Hernandez-Regalado’s response. We concur 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 16, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10701 Document: 00514350414 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2018
No. 17-10701

2

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-10701 Document: 00514350414 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/16/2018
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 06 5 . CARTER v

. STRI CKLAND.

Haro l d L. St ri ck l an d bro u g h t a n eg l i g en ce act i o n a g ai n st J oh n G. Cart er, in

Cart er’ s o ffi ci al cap aci t y as W ay n e Co u n t y Sh eri ff. Sh eri ff Cart er f i l e d t h i s d i rect

ap p eal fro m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er d en y i n g h i s m ot i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n t h e

b as i s o f s o v erei g n im

m un i t y

. Ev en t h o u g h t h e d en i al o f t h e m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary

ju d g m en t w as n o t a fi nal ju dg m en t s u b ject t o d i rect ap p eal wi t h i n t h e m ean i n g o f

OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (a) (1 ), Sh eri ff Cart er as s ert ed t hat a d i rect ap p eal was au t h o ri zed by

Bo a rd o f Reg en t s & c. v. Ca n a s

, 2 9 5 G a. Ap p

. 5 0 5 (6 7 2 SE2 d 4 71 ) (2 00 9 ), wh ere t h i s

Co u rt fo u n d u n d er th e co l l at eral o rd er d o ct ri n e th at a d i rect ap p eal was av ai l ab l e fro m

a p re-t ri al o rd er reject i ng t h e d efen s e o f s o v erei g n i m m u n it y

. Bu t i n Ri ver a v

. W a s h i n g t o n

, 2 01 6 W L 1 1 9 03 9 0 (Ga. M arch 2 5, 2 0 16 ), t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o v erru l ed

Ca n a s an d m ad e cl ear t h at t h e co l l at eral o r der d o ct ri n e d oes n o t au t h o ri ze a d i rect

ap p eal fro m an o rd er d en y in g a m o t i o n s eek in g d i s m i s s al o f an act i on o n t h e b as i s o f

s o v erei g n im

m u n i t y

. An ap p eal fro m t h e t r i a l c ou rt ’ s o rd er d en y i n g s u m m ary

ju d g m en t m

u s t b e b ro u g ht i n acco rd an ce wi t h t h e i n t erl o cu t o ry p ro ced u res i n OCGA

§ 5 -6 -3 4 (b ). Ri ver a , s u pra. Acco rd i n g l y , t h i s d irect ap p eal i s DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 04/14/2016 April 14, 2016
The State of

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00207-CR and 04-15-00208-CR

Jessica G. CASTILLO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 4, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 458109 and 458110

Honorable Jason Garrahan, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In the interest of the efficient administration of the court’s docket, we order Appeal Nos. 

04-15-00207-CR and 04-15-00208-CR consolidated. The parties must file motions, briefs, and 

other pleadings as if the appeals were one but put both appeal numbers in the style of the case. 

However, a record must be filed in each appeal, the record in each case will remain separate and, 

if supplementation of the record becomes necessary, the supplemental material must be filed in 

the appeal to which it applies. The cases must be argued together in one brief, as in a single 

appeal, and if oral argument is requested and granted, the entire case must be argued as a single 

appeal, with the total time limit for each party equal to the ordinary time limit for a party in a 

single appeal. The court will dispose of both appeals in the same judgment, opinion, and 

mandate.1

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of October, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

 1 We recognize that the parties filed consolidated motion, briefs, etc. prior to this order of consolidation. 

Henceforth, the parties shall comply with this order of consolidation with regard to all future filings, e.g., motions, 

requests, etc.
```
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                       AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Jeffery E. Jones, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of School4Chauffeurs, Inc. for the period ended December
31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of School4Chauffeurs, Inc.

April 7, 2010

                                     By: /s/ JEFFERY E. JONES
                                         __________________________________
                                             Jeffery E. Jones
                                             President, Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Sole Director

     I, Jeffery E. Jones, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of School4Chauffeurs, Inc. for the period ended December
31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of School4Chauffeurs, Inc.

April 7, 2010

                                     By: /s/ JEFFERY E. JONES
                                         __________________________________
                                             Jeffery E. Jones
                                             Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
                                             and Secretary

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to School4Chauffeurs, Inc. and will be retained by School4Chauffeurs, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
```
1 HLD

- 169 (July 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________
No. 10

- 1970

___________ FRED DOUGLAS VINING, Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA; APPLIED POWDER TECHNOLOGY; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY; WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD, ET AL

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylv ania (W.D. Pa. Civil No. 06

- cv

- 00016) District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lancaster

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 July 30, 2010 Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge , SCIRICA and WEIS, Circuit Judges ( Opinion filed : October 5, 2010 )

_________
OPINION

_________
PER CURIAM.
Fred Douglas Vining, proceeding pro se , appeals an order of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denying a post

- judgment2 order in his civil rights action.
In 2006, Vining filed a complaint claiming that the District Court had
violated his civil and federal rights by dismissing a complaint he had previously filed
against Applied Powder Technology, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry,
and the Workers Compensation Appeals Board. Vining su ed these same defendants
again and added the District Court as a defendant. On January 20, 2006, the District
Court dismissed Vining = s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2), noting that we
had affirmed the dismissal of his earlier complaint and exp laining that the District Court
is immune from suit for decisions that it renders. Vining did not appeal.
Over four years later, Vining filed a motion to amend his complaint.
Although Vining = s motion is unclear, he appears to contest the grounds for dism issal of
his original complaint. The District Court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
Vining did not timely appeal the District Court = s January 20, 2006, order
dismissing his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2). Our jurisdiction is lim ited

to a review of the District Court = s order denying Vining = s motion to amend his complaint
from which he filed a timely notice of appeal. See Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205,

209

- 10 (2007).3 To the extent the District Court treated Vining = s fil ing as a motion to amend
his complaint, the motion was properly denied because the District Court had dismissed
Vining = s complaint with prejudice four years earlier. To the extent Vining = s motion
could be construed a motion for relief from a judgment purs uant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b), the motion was properly denied because it was not made within a
reasonable time and was thus untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
Accordingly, because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we

will affirm the District Court = s order.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3313 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3313

 To amend the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 to extend the 
   authorization of financial assistance with respect to the Abraham 
                    Lincoln National Heritage Area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 6, 2021

  Mr. Durbin (for himself and Ms. Duckworth) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 to extend the 
   authorization of financial assistance with respect to the Abraham 
                    Lincoln National Heritage Area.

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

SECTION 1. ABRAHAM LINCOLN NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

    Section 451 of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (54 
U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 110-229; 122 Stat. 824) is amended by 
striking ``the date that is 15 years after the date of the enactment of 
this subtitle'' and inserting ``May 8, 2038''.
                                 <all>
```
#### CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE AND REALTY COMPANY v. PEARL MARTIN et al., and J. B. WADDELL v. CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE AND REALTY COMPANY et al.

(Filed 26 October, 1927.)

Appeal by J. B. Waddell from *Sinclair, J.,*at August Term, 1927, of Duehak.

Civil actions in claim and delivery brought to determine the ownership and to recover the possession of a Dodge automobile, plaintiff in each suit asserting superior right to the property.

The two cases were consolidated and tried as one, and resulted in the following verdict:

“1. Is the plaintiff, Consolidated Insurance and Realty Company, the owner and entitled to the possession of the Dodge roadster automobile in controversy? Answer: Yes.

*802“2. Is tbe plaintiff, J. B. Waddell, tbe owner and entitled to tbe possession of tbe Dodge roadster automobile in controversy ? Answer:.

“3. What was tbe value of tbe Dodge roadster automobile in controversy ? Answer: $1,000.”

From a judgment on tbe verdict in favor of tbe Consolidated Insurance and Realty Company, J. B. Waddell, plaintiff in tbe second action, appeals, assigning errors.

*William B. Guthrie and Walter B. Bass for appellant.*

*Brawley & Gantt for appellee.*

Pee Cueiam.

Tbe controversy on trial narrowed itself to an issue of fact, determinable alone by tbe jury. A careful perusal of tbe record leaves us with tbe impression that tbe case has been beard and determined substantially in accord with tbe principles of law applicable, and that tbe validity of tbe trial should be sustained. All matters in dispute have been settled by tbe verdict, and no action or ruling on tbe part of tbe trial court has been discovered by us which we apprehend should be held for reversible error. Tbe case presents no new question of law, or one not heretofore settled by our decisions; it only calls for tbe application of old principles to new facts. Tbe verdict and judgment must be upheld.

No error.
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Office of the Chief Actuary | Single-Year Tables Consistent with 2003 OASDI Trustees ReportUpdated March 17, 2003      Historical document   |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 5764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01885]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0915]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Guidance for Industry on 
Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Nonprescription Human Drug 
Products Marketed Without an Approved Application

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Guidance for Industry on 
Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Nonprescription Human Drug 
Products Marketed Without an Approved Application'' has been approved 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, 
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver 
Spring, MD 20993-0002, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e6b6b4a7b592878080a6808287c88e8e95c8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="306062716344515656705654511e5858431e575f46">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 2, 2015, the Agency submitted a 
proposed collection of information entitled ``Guidance for Industry on 
Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Nonprescription Human Drug 
Products Marketed Without an Approved Application'' to OMB for review 
and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB 
control number 0910-0636. The approval expires on December 31, 2018. A 
copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is 
available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: January 28, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-01885 Filed 2-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
JUDITH ANN DONOVAN, 

FORMER WIFE,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

JOHN CHARLES DONOVAN, 

III, FORMER HUSBAND,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

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. 1D15-3885

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 9, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

John "Jay" Gontarek, Judge.

Michael T. Webster and E. Jane Brehany, Pensacola, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

R. Stan Peeler, of Peeler Law Firm, P.C., Pensacola, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

PER CURIAM.

The parties have raised a number of issues, all of which we affirm, writing 

only to explain why affirmance is appropriate on the trial court’s order that reduced 

the former husband’s alimony payment to zero based on changed circumstances. The 

former wife, who argued that the modification of alimony was erroneous, argued 
2

that even if a reduction of alimony was proper, we should remand and require the 

trial court to enter an award of a nominal amount of permanent alimony to preserve 

jurisdiction in case of changed circumstances in the future. But the trial court has 

explicitly said that it “retains jurisdiction to enter whatever other orders which may 

be required,” which would include situations where changed circumstances might 

support an increase in awarded alimony. Although a nominal award of alimony 

preserves the trial court’s jurisdiction to revisit the matter in the future, entry of a 

nominal alimony award in this case was not necessary because jurisdiction was 

already retained. Winder v. Winder, 152 So. 3d 836, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### STATE v. CARLEE MORGAN.

(Filed 14 January, 1959.)

Appeal by defendant from *Preyer, J.,*at Regular April 1958 Term, of Robeson.

Criminal prosecution upon a bill of indictment charging that defendant did unlawfully and willfully, maliciously, and feloniously burn certain automobile, property of Bossie Henderson, with the intent to injure and prejudice the insurer Southeastern Fire Insurance Company thereon under certain policy in violation of G.S. 14-66.

Upon trial in Superior Court the State offered in evidence a statement purportedly signed by defendant confessing the burning of the automobile in question. The trial judge ruled that the confession was voluntary, and overruled defendant’s objection thereto. The State offered also other evidence tending to show other incriminating statements.

The defendant testifying in his own behalf denied the commission of the offense charged.

The case was submitted to the jury upon the evidence offered under a charge apparently free from error,— since none is pointed out.

"Verdict: Guilty as charged in the bill of indictment.

Judgment: Confinement in common jail of Robeson County to be assigned to the State Prison Department for a period of twelve months.

Defendant appeals therefrom to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*Attorney General Seawell, Assistant Attorney General T. W. Bru-ton, for the State.*

*Britt, Campbell & Britt for defendant, appellant.*

Pee Cueiam.

Decision here is determined upon whether the alleged confession of defendant was voluntary.

The ruling of the court is accordant with well established principles of law. And the evidence is abundantly sufficient to take the case to the jury and to support the verdict rendered. Hence in the judgment below there is

No Error.