alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Timothy PLAISTED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D09-2871.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Oct. 22, 2010.

*149Timothy Plaisted, Jasper, pro se.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Plaisted appeals from an order denying his motion for return of seized property. On appeal, the State argues that Plaisted’s motion was untimely. However, the State waived this argument by not raising it below. *See generally, Williams v. State,*414 So.2d 509 (Fla.1982). In fact, the State ultimately agreed to the return of all property seized — without conceding that the property was still held by the State — except for $100.00 in cash.1 With respect to the cash, the State argued that it should not be returned based on statements in Plaisted’s confession, where he admitted that he acquired the cash as a result of the criminal conduct for which he was prosecuted in the underlying case. Plaisted objected to the State’s use of his confession on grounds that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. The trial court denied Plaisted’s motion without addressing the constitutional issue. We reverse for further proceedings.

On remand, the trial court is directed to first determine whether the non-cash personal property is still held by the State. *See Bolden v. State,*875 So.2d 780, 782-83 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“At the evi-dentiary hearing, the trial court must first ascertain whether the property was confiscated by a law enforcement agency in connection with a criminal prosecution and whether the property is still in the agency’s possession.”). If so, the property should be ordered returned to Plaisted in accordance with the State’s concession at the prior hearing. With respect to the cash, the trial court is directed to consider Plaisted’s constitutional challenge to the use of his confession at a new hearing. *See, e.g., Alvarez v. City of Hialeah,*900 *150So.2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“The law is clear that the exclusionary rule applies to forfeiture proceedings ....”) (citations omitted).

Finally, we reject Plaisted’s argument that the trial court erred by failing to appoint counsel to represent him in connection with his motion for return of property. *See United States v. Wade,*291 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1316-17 (M.D.Fla.2003) (holding that because a motion for return of seized property and related appeal are civil in nature, there is no constitutional right to counsel).

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

ORFINGER, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

1

. The non-cash property consists of a “walk-man-type" CD player, a few commercially-produced music CDs and a few commercially-produced movies on DVD.
#### Johnathan M. GILMORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; Michael T.W. Bell, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 00-6901.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2000.

Decided Jan. 8, 2001.

Johnathan M. Gilmore, pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

*144PER CURIAM.

Johnathan M. Gilmore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Gilmore v. North Carolina Dep’t of Corr.,*No. CA-99-434-5-H (E.D.N.C. June 13, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 10.3


 


AMENDMENT


TO THE


SOUTH CAROLINA BANK AND TRUST,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT
AGREEMENT


DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2006


FOR


[EXECUTIVE’S NAME]


 


THIS AMENDMENT is adopted this 31st day
of December, 2008, by and between SCBT, N.A., formerly known as South Carolina
Bank and Trust, National Association, a national bank located in Orangeburg, South
Carolina (the “Bank”), and [Executive’s Name] (the “Executive”).


 


The Bank and the Executive executed the Supplemental
Executive Retirement Agreement effective as of November 1, 2006 (the “Agreement”).


 


Pursuant
to Section 8.1 of the Agreement, the undersigned hereby amend the
Agreement for the purpose of amending Sections 1.5 and 2.4 of the Agreement
regarding a change in control.  Therefore,
the following changes shall be made:


 


Section 1.5 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and
replaced by the following:


 


1.5                                 “Change in Control” means as defined
by Treasury Regulation § 1.409A-3(i)(5).


 


Section 2.4 of the Agreement shall be amended to delete the phrase
“followed by a Separation from Service” and state the following:


 


2.4                                 Change in Control Benefit.  Upon
a Change in Control, the Bank shall distribute to the Executive the benefit
described in this Section 2.4 in lieu of any other benefit under this
Article.


 


All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the Bank and the Executive hereby consent to this Amendment.


 


[EXECUTIONS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE]


 


1

















 


	
  Executive:

  	
   

  	
  SCBT, N.A.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By

  	
   

  
	
  [Executive’s Name]

  	
   

  	
  Title: Chief Executive Officer

  



 


2
#### Casey P. LEE v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 2011-CC-2235.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re HJC America Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 555,559; *1205to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011-CW-1045.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.
No. 87-6435.

#### Kaestel *v.*Sargent, Warden.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 1999 10-K
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,790                   5,047
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,646                 104,873
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,426                   4,963
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,907                 115,327
<PP&E>                                          97,438                  91,005
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,914                  16,192
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 264,345                 285,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,209                  58,202
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           119                     119
<OTHER-SE>                                     (87,694)                113,564
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   264,345                 285,332
<SALES>                                        368,655                 342,203
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               380,008                 359,656
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  406,340                 349,023
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   653                     279
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,605                   1,432
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,050                   7,154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,035                   1,189
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (13,165)                  1,504
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (25,870)                   (315)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (25,870)                   (315)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (2.17)                   (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.17)                   (.03)


</TABLE>
#### Kirsten GUY and Brittany Johnson v. Gary S. BROWN, Robert T. Weimer, IV, and Gary S. Brown, LLC.

No. 2011-C-1875.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Guy, Kirsten et al.; Johnson, Brittany; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 2010-3324; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-0099.

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60734-60735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24694]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XZ22


Endangered Species; File No. 13599-01

AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:  Notice; issuance of permit modification.

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

SUMMARY:  Notice is hereby given that National Ocean Service Marine 
Forensic Lab (NOS Lab, Julie Carter, Principal Investigator), 219 Fort 
Johnson Road, Charleston, SC 29412, has been issued a modification to 
scientific research Permit No. 13599.

ADDRESSES:  The modification and related documents are available for 
review upon written request or by appointment in the following 
office(s):
    Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 
20910; phone (301) 713-2289; fax (301) 713-0376; and
    Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Ave South, St. Petersburg, FL 
33701; phone (727) 824-5312; fax (727) 824-5309.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jennifer Skidmore or Colette Cairns, 
(301) 713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 25, 2010, notice was published in the 
Federal Register (75 FR 29316) that a modification of Permit No. 13599,

[[Page 60735]]

issued December 16, 2008 (73 FR 78724), had been requested by the 
above-named permit holder. The requested modification has been granted 
under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, 
importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 
222-226).
    This permit amendment adds those ESA-listed NMFS species not 
previously included in the previous permit. No live animal takes or 
incidental harassment of animals would is authorized under this permit. 
Samples will be archived at the NOS Lab and used to support law 
enforcement actions, research studies (primarily genetics), and 
outreach education.
    Issuance of this modification, as required by the ESA was based on 
a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will 
not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth 
in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: September 24, 2010.
P. Michael Payne,
Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-24694 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
II 

Calendar No. 815 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1725 

[Report No. 110–383] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

JUNE 16, 2008 

Reported by Mr. BINGAMAN, with an amendment 

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] 

AN ACT 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the Rancho California 

Water District Southern Riverside County Recycled/NonPotable Distribution Facilities and Demineralization/Desalination Recycled Water Treatment and Reclamation 

Facility Project. 

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


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1725 RS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rancho California 

3 Water District Recycled Water Reclamation Facility Act 

4 of 2007 2008 ’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

7 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102– 

8 575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by 

9 adding after section 16ll the following: 

10 ‘‘SEC. 16ll. RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 

11 PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. 

12 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera13 tion with the Rancho California Water District, California, 

14 may participate in the design, planning, and construction 

15 of permanent facilities for water recycling, 

16 demineralization, and desalination, and distribution of 

17 non-potable water supplies in Southern Riverside County, 

18 California. 

19 ‘‘(b) COST SHARING.—The Federal share of the cost 

20 of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

21 25 percent of the total cost of the project or $20,000,000, 

22 whichever is less. 

23 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—Funds provided by the Secretary 

24 under this section shall not be used for operation or main25 tenance of the project described in subsection (a).’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1725 RS

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of items in 

2 section 2 of Public Law 102–575 is amended by inserting 

3 after the item relating to section 16ll the following: 

‘‘Sec. 16ll. Rancho California Water District Project, California.’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
Calendar No. 815 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1725 

[Report No. 110

–383] 

AN ACT 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and 

cility Project. Recycled Water Treatment and Reclamation Fation Facilities and Demineralization/Desalination Riverside County Recycled/Non-Potable Distributhe Rancho California Water District Southern ize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorJUNE 16, 2008 

Reported with an amendment 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### In re William A. ROE.

No. 2009-B-2117.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 14, 2009.

ORDER

Considering the Petition for Interim Suspension filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that William A. Roe, Louisiana Bar Roll number 11384, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19, pending further orders of this court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that necessary disciplinary proceedings be instituted in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, §§ 11 and 19.

/s/ Jeffrey P. Victory

Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 131 

To impose a mandatory minimum sentence on a deportable alien who fails 

to depart or fails to attend a removal proceeding. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. GALLEGLY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To impose a mandatory minimum sentence on a deportable 

alien who fails to depart or fails to attend a removal 

proceeding. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES FOR DEPORTABLE 

4 ALIEN’S FAILURE TO DEPART OR FAILURE TO 

5 APPEAR. 

6 Section 243(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(a)) is amended— 

8 (1) in the subsection heading, by inserting 

9 ‘‘FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AND’’ before ‘‘FOR FAIL10 URE TO DEPART’’; 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 131 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (1)— 

2 (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘or’’ 

3 at the end; 

4 (B) in subparagraph (D), by adding ‘‘or’’ 

5 at the end; and 

6 (C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) 

7 the following: 

8 ‘‘(E) was ordered removed in absentia 

9 under section 240(b)(5)(A) (unless such order 

10 was rescinded under subparagraph (C) of such 

11 section),’’; and 

12 (3) by striking the matter following subpara13 graph (E) (as added by paragraph (2)) and inserting 

14 the following: 

15 ‘‘shall be imprisoned for a term of years not less than 1 

16 and not more than 4 (or 10 years if the alien is a member 

17 of any of the classes described in paragraph (1)(E), (2), 

18 (3), or (4) of section 237(a)) and fined in accordance with 

19 title 18, United States Code.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Allen SNYDER.

No. 2010-KK-2129.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Snyder, Allen; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 95-5114; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-K-628.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Justin H. ROSIER.

No. 2011-K-1452.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Rosier, Justin H.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 473533; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 2204.

Denied.
#### Ruben GUTIERREZ, Appellant, v. Joanne GUTIERREZ, Appellee.

No. 5D09-2999.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Nov. 12, 2010.

*119Erick Trivedi, Orlando, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PALMER, J.

Ruben Gutierrez (father) appeals the order entered by the trial court adopting the recommendations of the general magistrate on the father’s motions to modify the parties’ child support obligations and child custody arrangement. Determining that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on the father’s exceptions to the general magistrate’s report, we reverse.

Post-dissolution, the father filed a petition seeking a downward modification of his child support obligation. He subsequently filed a supplemental petition to modify custody and other relief. The trial court referred the father’s supplemental petition to a general magistrate. The matter then proceeded to a hearing before the general magistrate. After receiving evidence, the general magistrate issued a report and recommendation. The father timely filed exceptions to the general magistrate’s report and requested a hearing on the exceptions. The trial court entered an order adopting the general magistrate’s report without holding a hearing on the exceptions.

The father contends that the trial court’s order approving the general magistrate’s report must be reversed because the trial court failed to hold a hearing on the exceptions in spite of his request for such a hearing. We agree.

Rule 12.490 of the Florida Family Rules of Procedure authorizes parties to file exceptions to a general magistrate’s report. The rule further instructs trial courts to conduct hearings on timely filed exceptions:

> Rule 12.490. General Magistrates

> * * 3⁄8

> (f) Filing Report; Notice; Exceptions. The general magistrate shall file the report and recommendations and serve copies on all parties. The parties may file exceptions to the report within 10 days from the time it is served on them.... If exceptions are filed, they shall be heard on reasonable notice by either party or the court.

Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.490(f). It is reversible error for a trial court to fail to conduct a hearing on timely filed exceptions. *See Simmons v. Simmons,*16 So.3d 878 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)(holding that, because trial court failed to hold a hearing on husband’s timely filed exceptions to the general magistrate’s report before entering the final judgment in dissolution action, case would be remanded to the trial court to conduct an appropriate hearing). *Accord Collado v. Pavlow,*951 So.2d 69, 70 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Here, the father was entitled to receive a hearing on his exceptions to the general magistrate’s report because he did timely file his exceptions.1

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SAWAYA and ORFINGER, JJ„ concur.

1

. All of the other claims of error raised by the father in his appellate brief can be addressed *120by the trial court during the hearing on the father’s exceptions.
#### In re CLARKE BROS.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Nov. 26, 1951.

*350Reilly & Curry, New York City, Francis R. Curry, New York City, for petitioner.

Irving Saypol, New York City, U. S'. Atty. for Southern District of N. Y.

Edward Feldman, New York City, for the Supt. of Banks.

Nichols & Belford, New York City, for other petitioners.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

Application under § 66, sub. b, of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 106, sub. b, (a) for confirmation of the Report of a Special Master recommending the distribution of undistributed dividends, and (b) for a fee to be allowed the attorneys for the original petitioning creditor and for their disbursements herein. After notice, other creditors, entitled to share, intervened. The Special Master made no recommendation regarding the original petitioner’s attorneys’ application for an allowance. Motion in part granted and in part denied.

The Special Master’s Report of November 14, 1951 is confirmed and the sum of $2818.65 will be distributed as therein recommended. The Special Master’s allowance for his services herein is fixed at the sum of $100 as requested.

The attorneys for the original petitioner herein shall be reimbursed for their expenses of $34.40-as proved. There is no statutory basis for allowing them a fee payable out of the estate notwithstanding that the other intervening creditors now sharing in this distribution are the beneficiaries of the labors of counsel for the original petitioner. To the extent that this motion seeks an allowance for said attorne}Fs’ services, it is denied.