alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Steven M. BARNETT, Appellant. Steven M. BARNETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 54659, 56783.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 23, 1990.

Charles Maas, Laurence Gavin Schmidt, Hillsboro, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

Consolidated appeal. Defendant pled guilty to robbery in the first degree and was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. In his direct appeal, defendant asserts error in the acceptance of his guilty plea because of a defective information. He also claims he was entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing on his Rule 24.035 motion in that his lawyer was ineffective. We affirm the conviction and sentence and affirm the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion.

Defendant entered a prescription drug store in Cedar Hill, Missouri. He said hello to a store clerk who recognized defendant as a past customer. Defendant walked to *442the back, pulled a stocking cap over his face, produced a gun and demanded drugs.

Defendant argues the information was fatally defective because it failed to state a culpable mental state for the use of or threatened use of immediate physical force. The relevant portion of the information states:

> Defendant, in violation of Section 569.-020, RSMo, committed the class A Felony of Robbery in the First Degree in that on January 7, 1986 ... Defendant forcibly stole ... drugs ... in the charge of Pat Johnson, and in the course thereof Defendant was armed with a deadly weapon.

“An information must set forth the elements of the offense or it is ‘fatally defective.’ ” *State v. Ward,*776 S.W.2d 906, 907[1] (Mo.App.1989). Here, the information contained all of the elements of the offense under § 569.020.1(2), RSMo 1986. It complied with MACH-CR 23.02. It stated defendant forcibly stole while armed with a deadly weapon. The term “forcibly steals,” as defined in § 569.010(1), RSMo 1986, includes the requisite mental state of acting purposefully. The information was sufficient and defendant pled guilty to it. *Lewis v. State,*650 S.W.2d 335, 336[1] (Mo.App.1983).

In his Rule 24.035 motion appeal, defendant specifically claims his trial lawyer was ineffective because he did not consider the potential defense of involuntary intoxication. This particular variant of defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel was not included in his motion or amended motion below. We will not consider it here. *State v. Novak,*778 S.W.2d 7, 8-9[4] (Mo.App.1989). The denial of defendant’s Rule 24.035 motion without a evi-dentiary hearing was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j).

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23 - 50089 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Marvin Alexander Tut -**  **Cucul,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:22 - CR - 671 - 1

**___________ ___________________**  Before **Smith, Higginson,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Marvin Alexander Tut - Cucul 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). Tut - Cucul has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 11, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50089 Document: 00516996946 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2023No. 23 - 50089

2 concur 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 r esponsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 23-50089 Document: 00516996946 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2023
#### STATE v. OSCAR DOUGLAS (Alias JACK PEE).

(Filed 24 September, 1947.)

Criminal Law § 80b (4) —

Where defendant fails to serve case on appeal within the time allowed, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss will be granted, but where defendant has been convicted of a capital offense this will be done only after examination of the record proper fails to disclose error.

Appeal by defendant from *Sink, J.,*at March Term, 1947, of Davie.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moody for the State.*

*No counsel for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe defendant was convicted of rape. Sentence of death by asphyxiation was imposed. Defendant gave notice of appeal. No case on appeal has been served. Tbe time for serving case on appeal has expired and no extension of tbe time for serving such case has been granted.

Tbe Attorney-General moves to docket and dismiss tbe appeal. Tbe motion must be allowed, but, according to tbe rule of tbe Court in capital cases, we have examined tbe record to see if any error appears. No error is disclosed by tbe record. *S. v. Watson,*208 N. C., 70, 179 S. E., 455.

Judgment affirmed.

Appeal dismissed.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3608

Scosche Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4119 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4119

        To reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2022

 Mr. Lee (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Sinema, 
  Mr. Kelly, Mr. Risch, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Lummis, Mr. 
  Romney, Mr. Booker, and Mr. Hickenlooper) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``RECA Extension Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(d) of the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act (Public Law 101-426; 42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking the first sentence and inserting ``The Fund 
        shall terminate on the date that is 2 years after the date of 
        enactment of the RECA Extension Act of 2022.''; and
            (2) by striking ``22-year period'' and inserting ``2-year 
        period''.
    (b) Limitation on Claims.--Section 8(a) of the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act (Public Law 101-426; 42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended 
by striking ``within 22 years after the date of the enactment of the 
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000'' and inserting 
``not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the RECA 
Extension Act of 2022''.
                                 <all>
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2952

Price Pump Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
****

**MOTOR MODEL: RS555**

# image1.jpeg

# image2.jpeg

# image3.jpeg

# image4.png

# image5.png
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3441

Scosche Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6305]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 11322-000 California]


Tuolumne Utilities District; Availability of Draft Environmental 
Assessment

March 9, 1995.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47897), the Office 
of Hydropower Licensing has reviewed the application for a minor 
license for the Columbia Water Supply Hydroelectric Project, located 
near the town of Sonora, in Tuolumne County, California, and has 
prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the project. In the 
DEA, the Commission's staff has analyzed the potential future 
environmental impacts of the project and has concluded that approval of 
the project, with appropriate environmental protection and enhancement 
measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would 
significantly affect quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the DEA are available for review in the Public Reference 
Branch, Room 3104, of the Commission's offices at 941 North Capitol 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this 
notice and should be addressed to Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 925 North Capitol Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426. For further information, contact Michael 
Strzelecki, Environmental Coordinator, at (202) 219-2827.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6305 Filed 3-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Roger HOLTKAMP, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 65805.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

April 18, 1995.

Rehearing Denied May 31, 1995.

Bradley S. Dede, Thomas C. Antoniou, Shaw, Howlett & Knappenberger, Clayton, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellee.

Before CRANE, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Roger Holtkamp, appeals from his judgment of convictions, after a jury trial, for two counts of sodomy. He was sentenced to a concurrent term of 15 years on each count.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment of convictions are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4351 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4351

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify the 
 conditions under which the Secretary of Health and Human Services can 
 approve generic drug applications with labeling temporarily different 
           than the brand name drug, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2022

 Mr. Romney (for himself, Ms. Hassan, Ms. Rosen, and Mr. Hickenlooper) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify the 
 conditions under which the Secretary of Health and Human Services can 
 approve generic drug applications with labeling temporarily different 
           than the brand name drug, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Enhanced Access to Affordable 
Medicines Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE MEDICINES.

    Section 505(j)(10)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(21 U.S.C. 355(j)(10)(A)) is amended by striking clauses (i) through 
(iv) and inserting the following:
            ``(i) a revision to the labeling of the listed drug has 
        been approved by the Secretary within 90 days of when the 
        application is otherwise eligible for approval under this 
        subsection;
            ``(ii) the sponsor of the application agrees to submit 
        revised labeling for the drug that is the subject of the 
        application not later than 60 days after approval under this 
        subsection of the application; and
            ``(iii) the labeling revision described under clause (i) 
        does not include a change to the `Warnings' section of the 
        labeling.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-1881

GHL International, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
LUCIUS B

. SMITH

,

Petitioner,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

,

Respondent.

______________________ ______/ 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. 1D 14

- 3182

Opinion filed April 6, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Lucius B

. Smith, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kathleen C. Haga n, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee; Jennifer Parker, General Counsel, Department of Corrections,

Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

ROWE, MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of TechLite,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  March  31,  2005 (the
"Report"),  I, J.D.  Arvidson,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  hereby
certify that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  ss.78m or ss.78o(d));
and

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



Dated:  May 27, 2005
                                             /s/ J.D. Arvidson
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            J.D. Arvidson
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


         The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350)  and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7236]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Under Review by Office of Management and Budget

Acting Agency Clearance Officer: David T. Copenhafer, (202) 942-8800.
Upon Written Request, Copy Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, 450 Fifth 
Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20549.
Proposed Rule and Form: Rule 204-4--File No. 270-398; Form ADV-B--File 
No. 270-398.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission has submitted for OMB approval Rule 204-4 and Form ADV-B 
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act'').

    The proposed rule would require each investment adviser, registered 
or required to be registered under the Adviser Act, that has the 
discretion to direct client brokerage transactions and receives 
services other than execution in exchange for that brokerage, to 
provide its clients with a report that would contain information about 
its use of client brokerage. The proposed form would set forth the 
information required to be included in the annual report. The proposed 
rule does not involve any burden separate from the requirement to 
prepare and file the proposed form.

    It is estimated that approximately 6,000 advisers would be required 
to file Form ADV-B with the Commission, and that each adviser 
completing the form would incur 20 burden hours in its preparation. The 
estimate of burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act and is not derived from a comprehensive or even 
representative survey or study of the cost of SEC rules and forms.

    General comments may be directed to the OMB Clearance Officer for 
the Securities and Exchange Commission at the address below. Comments 
concerning the accuracy of the estimated average burden hours for 
compliance with Commission rules and forms should be directed to David 
T. Copenhafer, Acting Director, Office of Information Technology, 
Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, 
D.C. 20549, and to the OMB Clearance Officer for the SEC, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (Paperwork Reduction Act numbers 
3235--new (for Rule 204-4), 3235--new (for Form ADV-B), Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, D.C. 20543.

    Dated: March 9, 1995.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95-7236 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M