alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J.P., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-1406.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 26, 2011.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heidi Milan Caballero, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, LAGOA, and EMAS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See State v. Zaldivar,*34 So.3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); *Prestley v. State,*896 So.2d 862, 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Occupants of a private vehicle are traveling together by choice and thus may be assumed to have some personal or business association with one another. Knowledge or suspicion that one of the occupants has been involved in criminal activity occurring within the car, or involving the car itself, serves as a basis for a reasonable suspicion that the other occupants may be participants in that activity. Therefore, we conclude that since the officers had a reasonable suspicion that the car was stolen, they had a basis for stopping and questioning the passengers in the vehicle, including the Juvenile.”).
News United States Air Force
 AFMAO becomes Field Operating AgencyPublished May 5, 2014
                        
                        By Christin Michaud
                        
                        
                        AFMAO Public Affairs
                **DOVER AIR FORCE BASE, Del. (AFNS) --**
                Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations became a Field Operating Agency, May 1, at the Charles C. Carson Center for Mortuary Affairs, Dover Air Force Base, Del., aligning it directly under Headquarters Air Force leadership.
The organization, created as a named activity of the Directorate of Services, Manpower and Personnel, Headquarters United States Air Force, was originally activated Jan. 6, 2009. 
The change was approved Feb. 14, 2014, by Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James, under the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which authorized the stand-up of the FOA.
"Aligning AFMAO directly under Headquarters Air Force reinforces the operational value of our mission in supporting all our nation's fallen including active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines as well as guardsmen, reservists and civilians," said Col. John Devillier, AFMAO commander.
The new construct combines operational and personnel decisions under one command with mission execution authority by the secretary and chief of staff of the Air Force. Transition to a FOA allows for Air Force leaders' direct control when contingency situations warrant immediate action.
"This permanent command relationship allows for a direct chain of command to the most senior Air Force leadership, further underlying the success of our no-fail mission," added Devillier.
The change shows the value this organization brings to the entire DOD taking care of families of the fallen, said the commander. 
"We not only support the Air Force, we support the entire Department of Defense," said Devillier. 
"The Air Force got this right by highlighting the importance of this organization and mission," said Brig. Gen. Patrick Doherty, Air Force Services director. 
"You only get one chance to get it right when we deal with families," said Doherty. "The level of performance that you guys do on a daily basis is just extraordinary." 
AFMAO is the Air Force's 21st Field Operating Agency.Mortuary Affairs 



Dover AFB 



Del. 



field operating agency
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1359 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1359

To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United 
 States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2007

Mr. Shadegg (for himself, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. 
    Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Flake, Mr. 
 Gohmert, Mr. Marchant, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Burton 
of Indiana, Mr. Herger, Mr. Akin, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Bishop of New York, 
Mr. Paul, Mr. McCotter, and Mrs. Myrick) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition 
 to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United 
 States Constitution for the enactment of laws, 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 ``Enumerated Powers Act''.

SEC. 2. SPECIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR ENACTMENT OF LAW.

    (a) Constitutional Authority for This Act.--This Act is enacted 
pursuant to the power granted Congress under article I, section 8, 
clause 18, of the United States Constitution and the power granted to 
each House of Congress under article I, section 5, clause 2, of the 
United States Constitution.
    (b) Constitutional Authority Statement Required.--Chapter 2 of 
title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 102 
the following new section:
``Sec. 102a. Constitutional authority clause
    ``Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite 
statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment 
of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section 
shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The 
availability of this point of order does not affect any other available 
relief.''
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 2 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
the item relating to section 102 the following new item:

``102a. Constitutional authority clause.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1434 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 305
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1434

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 24, 2007

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

                             August 1, 2007

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 896 Pittsburgh Street in Springdale, Pennsylvania, as the ``Rachel 
                     Carson Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. RACHEL CARSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 896 Pittsburgh Street in Springdale, Pennsylvania, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Rachel Carson Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Rachel 
Carson Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 305

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1434

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 896 Pittsburgh Street in Springdale, Pennsylvania, as the ``Rachel 
                     Carson Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 1, 2007

                       Reported without amendment
```
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-139977, 333-137872 and 333-143495 and Form S-3 Nos. 333-140074and 333-136335) of Force Protection, Inc. and in the related Prospectusesof our reports dated June 5, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Force Protection, Inc. management’s assessmentof the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of ForceProtection, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) forthe year ended December 31, 2006.
| /s/ Jaspers + Hall, PC |   |
|------------------------|--------|
| JASPERS  + HALL, PC    |   |
|                   |   |
| Denver, Colorado       |   |
| October 12, 2007       |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of OmniComm Systems, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, being, Cornelis F. Wit, Chief Executive Officer 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:



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



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



|                                                |  | 
|----------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Cornelis F. Wit                             |  | 
|Cornelis F. Wit                                 |  | 
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |  | 

March 30, 2007
##### 



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Winston Hotels, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  Report), I, Joseph V. Green,
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

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

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

|       |  |                                       | 
|------ |  | ------------------------------------- | 
|       |  | /s/ Joseph V. Green                  
|       |  |                                      
|Name:  |  | Joseph V. Green                      
|Title: |  | Executive Vice President,            
|       |  | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
|       |  |                                      
|Date:  |  | August 13, 2003                      

35
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5490]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  PERMISSION FOR CERTAIN COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES TO SIT DURING 5-
                              MINUTE RULE

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today 
while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under 
the 5-minute rule:
  Committee on Agriculture; Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services; Committee on Commerce; Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee 
on the Judiciary; Committee on National Security; Committee on 
Resources; and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minority has been 
consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not 
intend to object, the majority has consulted with our ranking members 
on these requests and we have no objection.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  

                          ____________________
```
#### Kevin James COLLINS, Appellant, v. Stacie Leigh COLLINS, Appellee.

No. 5D10-2956.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Sept. 6, 2011.

Kevin J. Collins, Cross City, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Hirsch v. Hirsch,*642 So.2d 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

SAWAYA, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Martin HILL v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0324.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Hill, Martin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 04-4827; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-1055.

Denied.
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1434 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 24, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 896 Pittsburgh Street in Springdale, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Rachel Carson Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

HR 1434 RFS

1 SECTION 1. RACHEL CARSON POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 896 Pittsburgh Street in Spring4 dale, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Rachel Carson Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Rachel Carson Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 23, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Edward ALLEN.

No. 2012-KK-0534.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 18, 2012.

In re Allen, Edward; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 491-394; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1622.

Denied.
#### Bryan Keith TRUETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D11-4645.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 12, 2011.

Matt Shirk, Public Defender, and J. Mark Wright, Assistant Public Defender, Green Cove Springs, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

*934PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of August 31, 2011, the Court has determined that the appeal is untimely. In order to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction in a timely manner, the appellant must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of rendition of the judgment and sentence. Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(3). The lower tribunal rendered the judgment and sentence on July 25, 2011. Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h). The thirtieth day following rendition was Wednesday, August 24, 2011. Thus, the notice of appeal, filed the next day, failed to timely invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
578 A.2d 1226

#### IN THE MATTER OF GERALD C. KELLY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

Decided September 12, 1990.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, it is ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order of disbarment is denied; and it is further ORDERED that the stay of respondent’s disbarment is hereby vacated, effective with the filing of the within Order.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.'s
333-74784 on Form S-8 and 333-68001 on Form S-3 of Noble International, Ltd. and
of our report dated March 29, 2004 (which report expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to its changes in
accounting for the impairment or disposal of long-lived assets and goodwill in
2002), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Noble International, Ltd.
for the year ended December 31, 2003.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Detroit, Michigan
March 29, 2004

                                       68
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rocky GROS.

No. 2012-KK-0772.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 18, 2012.

In re Gros, Rocky; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, Div. E, No. 10-*12550165; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 12-00060.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
PER SHARE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SCHEDULE HAS BEEN RESTATED TO CONFORM TO
THE PROVISIONS OF STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NO. 128, "EARNINGS
PER SHARE".

THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                               224
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                         257
<MORTGAGE>                                          11
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                     492
<CASH>                                              86<F1>
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                  90
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                              43
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1053
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                    257
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                271
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                     29
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                         329
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1053
<PREMIUMS>                                         114
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                  8
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   3
<OTHER-INCOME>                                      14
<BENEFITS>                                          55
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                         21
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     15
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 12
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        12
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
<FN>
<F1>Cash includes short-term investments
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### James BEAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D10-1207.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 4, 2011.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine N. Austin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the finding that appellant willfully violated his community control. Appellant’s house had been without electricity for several months, so he ran an extension cord from a neighbor’s house to charge a miniature tracking device used to monitor his whereabouts. He had been sleeping outside to stay within the range of the tracking device, but moved inside to a bedroom due to the cold weather. This move brought him outside of the range of the tracking device. The state presented no evidence that appellant intentionally disregarded the rules of the GPS monitoring system. *See Correa v. State,*43 So.3d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

*Reversed and remanded.*

GROSS, C.J., HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.