alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Darell JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D09-2912.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 13, 2010.

Darell Johnson, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is hereby granted a belated appeal of the June 27, 2009, judgment and sentence in Bay County Circuit Court case number 2003-2861-CFMA. Upon issuance of mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion shall be provided to the clerk of the circuit court for treatment as the notice of appeal. Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(D). If petitioner qualifies for appointed counsel, the trial court shall ap*70point counsel to represent petitioner on appeal.

LEWIS, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24969]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2951-000]


Shipyard Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

September 29, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Shipyard Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 19, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bafcffe8f9f5d4d6d3d4dfe9cfcacad5c8cefadcdfc8d994ddd5cc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e1a7a4b3a2ae8f8d888f84b29491918e9395a187849382cf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>. 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24969 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Calvin FLOURNOY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D09-4177.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 24, 2010.

James Marian Moorman, Public Defender, and Allyn M. Giambalvo, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sara Macks, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

CRENSHAW, Judge.

Calvin Flournoy appeals his judgment and sentences and argues that the trial court erred by denying his unequivocal request to represent himself without conducting an inquiry pursuant to *Faretta v. California,*422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). The State contends that any *Faretta*inquiry would be futile because Flournoy failed to demonstrate during the pendency of his trial that he had the ability to exercise the necessary restraint to represent himself. *See, e.g., Indiana v. Edwards,*554 U.S. 164, 171, 128 S.Ct. 2379, 171 L.Ed.2d 345 (2008) (recognizing *Faretta*and later cases “have made clear that the right of self-representation is not absolute”); *see also Tennis v. State,*997 So.2d 375, 378 (Fla.2008) (acknowledging that in “certain instances a defendant may be precluded from exercising his or her right to proceed pro se after the trial court conducts a *Faretta*inquiry”). However, the seeming futility of a trial court’s *Faretta*inquiry “does not eliminate the requirement that a hearing be held to enable the trial court to make the appropriate determination of whether a defendant can represent himself.” *Tennis,*997 So.2d at 378-79. Flournoy’s request for self-representation was unequivocal; consequently, the trial court’s failure to hold a *Faretta*hearing resulted in per se reversible error, and our review is not amenable to a harmless error analysis. *See Tennis,*997 So.2d at 379; *State v. Young,*626 So.2d 655, 656-57 (Fla.1993); *Goldsmith v. State,*937 So.2d 1253, 1257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Accordingly, because the trial court failed to conduct any *Faret-ta*inquiry and because we are constrained by the language in *Tennis, Young,*and *Goldsmith,*we reverse Flournoy’s judgment and sentences and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

CASANUEVA, C.J., and LaROSE, J„ Concur.
**Exhibit
        32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **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 of Brigham Exploration Company (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the "Report”), I, Eugene
        B. Shepherd, Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 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:
                  March 7, 2007
              /s/EUGENE
                  B. SHEPHERD,
                  JR.Eugene
                  B. Shepherd, Jr.
                Executive
                  Vice President and
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
 
 
 This
        certification shall not be deemed to be "filed" for the purpose of Section
        18 of
        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated
        by
        reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act
        of
        1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated
        therein by reference.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
        by Section 906, has been provided Brigham Exploration Company and will be
        retained by Brigham Exploration Company and furnished to the Securities and
        Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS E ASTLAND , T EXAS J UDGMENT

Nasser Shafipour, * From the 96th District Court of Tarrant County, Trial Court No. 096

- 23649 9

- 09

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00212

- CV * May 29 , 2015

Rischon Development Corporation, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there i s error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and judgment is rendered that Rischon Development Corporation take nothing. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Rischon Development Corporation

.
#### STATE ex rel. Antoinette HOLMES v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1199.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re Holmes, Antoinette; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 97-6759, 97-6760; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 08-WR-1125, 09-KH-385.

Denied.
Exhibit 10.2 -- SEO Waiver



 Exhibit 10.2 
 WAIVER 
 In consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s participation in the
United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required to comply with the
regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury as published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008. 
 I acknowledge that this regulation may
require modification of the compensation, bonus, incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including so-called “golden parachute” agreements) that I have with my employer or in which I participate as they
relate to the period the United States holds any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital Purchase Program. 
 This waiver
includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any state related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation, including without limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I would otherwise
receive, any challenge to the process by which this regulation was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these regulations on my employment relationship. 
  

			
	 Date:                                      
   , 2008
	 	  

		 	Signature
		
		 	  

		 	Print Name
		
		 	  

		 	Title
IB 

Union Calendar No. 4 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 720 

[Report No. 115–16] 

To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve 

attorney accountability, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2017 

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. BUCK, Mr. FRANKS

of Arizona, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. CHABOT, and Mr. CHAFFETZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

FEBRUARY 24, 2017 

Additional sponsor: Mr. SESSIONS

FEBRUARY 24, 2017 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 720 RH

A BILL 

To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

to improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 720 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lawsuit Abuse Reduc5 tion Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABILITY. 

7 (a) SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 11.—Rule 11(c) of the 

8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘may’’ and in10 serting ‘‘shall’’; 

11 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Rule 5’’ and 

12 all that follows through ‘‘motion.’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘Rule 5.’’; and 

14 (3) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘situated’’ 

15 and all that follows through the end of the para16 graph and inserting ‘‘situated, and to compensate 

17 the parties that were injured by such conduct. Sub18 ject to the limitations in paragraph (5), the sanction 

19 shall consist of an order to pay to the party or par20 ties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred 

21 as a direct result of the violation, including reason22 able attorneys’ fees and costs. The court may also 

23 impose additional appropriate sanctions, such as 

24 striking the pleadings, dismissing the suit, or other 

25 directives of a non-monetary nature, or, if warranted 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 720 RH

1 for effective deterrence, an order directing payment 

2 of a penalty into the court.’’. 

3 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

4 or an amendment made by this Act shall be construed to 

5 bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, 

6 defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, 

7 including civil rights laws, or under the Constitution of 

8 the United States. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 4 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 720 

[Report No. 115–16] 

A BILL 

To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

and for other purposes. Procedure to improve attorney accountability, 

FEBRUARY 24, 2017 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Ralph WARE v. GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 2010-CC-2834.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Gemini Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Natchitoch-es, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 81810-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. CW10-3, CA 10-594.

Denied.

VICTORY, GUIDRY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.
#### James FARMER, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-0799.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 31, 2011.

Rehearing Denied June 13, 2011.

James Farmer, Jr., pro se, Petitioner.

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

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(C).

THOMAS, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
#### Casey KIRKBRIDE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D10-230.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 11, 2011.

*1137Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

GERBER, J.

The defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing the state to waive its initial closing argument and give only a rebuttal closing argument, which he claims went beyond the scope of his closing argument. The defendant did not raise this argument at trial and, therefore, he must show fundamental error. Based on our review of the record and the parties’ arguments, the defendant has not shown fundamental error. *See Boyd v. State,*45 So.3d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“Improper comments rise to the level of fundamental error only where the error ‘reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.’”) (citation omitted). However, we use this opportunity to remind the state that “[t]he proper limit of a rebuttal is ‘a reply to what has been brought out in the defendant’s [closing] argument.’” *Brown v. State,*18 So.3d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citation omitted).

*Affirmed.*

STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ZARING
NATIONAL CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,699
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,292
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    112,842
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          30,932     
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,488      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 162,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         93,028
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,957
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,826
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   162,356
<SALES>                                        268,198
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               268,198
<CGS>                                          222,428
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  222,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,254
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,940
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,424)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,058)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,366)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,366)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.34)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, David A. Kindlick, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of South Jersey Gas Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15(e)):

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.




Date: July 28, 2004                   /s/ David A. Kindlick
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      David A. Kindlick
                                      Executive Vice President &
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### In re Chadwick Alan TOBLER.

No. 2011-OB-1518.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 13, 2011.

In re Tobler, Chadwick Alan;—Plaintiff; Applying For Admission.

Denied. Considering our order this date in In re: Tobler, ll-OB-1517, the application for admission in this matter is premature.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C HR ISTINA M . C HAPPELL, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-36012 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-05302-R B L
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B
. Le ighton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a n d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 9, 2015 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS, M c KEOW N, a nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff C hristina M
. C h a ppe ll a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de ci s io n affirm ing the Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm i n istra

tion’ s de nia l of disa

bility be ne fits. W e a ffirm
. The A dm i nistra

tive Law Judge (“ A L J” ) did not e rr a t ste p s four a nd five , a s she ga ve s pe c ific , le gitim a te re a son s ba se d on substa ntia l e vide n c e for giving gre a te r



# FIL ED
DEC 17 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is n o t ap p r o p r i a te for public ation a nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.we ight t o n on-e xa m ining sourc e s tha n to tre a ting a n d e xam ining sourc e s; spe c ific , c le a r, a nd c o nvinc ing re a sons for finding C ha ppe ll’ s te st im ony not c re dible ; a n d ge rm a ne re a s ons for re

je c ting C h appe ll’ s m o t

he r’ s la y te stim ony . Se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1111-14 (9th C ir. 2012). A l t hough the ALJ e rre d a t s te p thre e by re l y i ng on Dr. M oore ’ s te stim o n y t o find that C ha

ppe ll did not m e e t Listing 12.04’ s pa ra gra ph C c rite ria whe n Dr. M oore did n ot spe c ific al ly te stify a bout the pa

ra g ra ph C c rite ria , the e rror w a s ha rm le s s in light of the

othe r e vide nc e in the re c ord. Se e id. at 1115. AFFIRM E D.

2